John McCain is a threat to the Bill of Rights


PDA






MountainPeak
May 24, 2005, 10:35 PM
If you can't see it, you haven't been paying attention!!! He has become a sellout, popular with media, but a SELLOUT none the less. I wrote him, and if you give a damn about the constitution, you should too!! www.mccain.senate.gov

If you enjoyed reading about "John McCain is a threat to the Bill of Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jammer Six
May 24, 2005, 10:49 PM
Yup, I'll write him.

To congratulate him on his latest accomplishment, and let him know he has support in many quarters.

Flyboy
May 24, 2005, 10:51 PM
John McCain is a threat to the Bill of Rights
In other news, scientists discovered today that water is wet. They're still working on whether fire is hot.

javafiend
May 24, 2005, 11:14 PM
And in a related development, scientists have discovered a link between moon phases and the tides.

SIGarmed
May 24, 2005, 11:15 PM
They don't call him the manchurian candidate for nothing.

Waitone
May 24, 2005, 11:22 PM
"Threat"????

The man is no threat. The man is a constitutional assassin.

Remember Campaign Finance Control, perhaps the most in-your-face unconstitutional law in recent memory and he is proud of it.

MikeB
May 24, 2005, 11:33 PM
I sent the following message to him. I purposefully didn't mention his anti-gun statements, votes and proposals in the past as I figured they would be dismissed by his office. Of course this message is likely to be as well. I completely disagree with Bush on many issues, however what is going on in the Senate is almost as bad as the Campaign Finance Reform Act. We might as well give George Soros control of the Senate.

Congratulations John.

I've been registered as an Independent since I turned 18 and had been proud of not being a Republican or Democrat. You've finally convinced me to register for the Republican party. After your unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform Act and your current unconstituntional "deal" with the Democrats; I can't wait to vote against you in the next Republican Presidential Primaries.

Mike B...

nico
May 24, 2005, 11:36 PM
Yup, I'll write him.

To congratulate him on his latest accomplishment, and let him know he has support in many quarters.
not a fan of the Constitution I see.

jdberger
May 25, 2005, 12:24 AM
After your unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform Act and your current unconstituntional "deal" with the Democrats; I can't wait to vote against you in the next Republican Presidential Primaries.

I'm no constitutional scholar, will someone explain to me how the deal with the Democrats is "unconstitutional"?

The way I see it, the Republicans got 3 of 5 nominees as sure confirms and didn't have to give up anything at all. And, they retained to right to filibuster should the balance in the Senate ever turn against them.

Someone, please enlighten me. :scrutiny:

Standing Wolf
May 25, 2005, 12:24 AM
Sad to say, I believe writing to McCain is a lot like trying to teach cats to whistle.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 25, 2005, 02:17 AM
It's going to be interesting to see the smackdown McCain gets for straying from the party line.

jdberger
May 25, 2005, 02:28 AM
It's going to be interesting to see the smackdown McCain gets for straying from the party line. Yup, for bending the Dems to his will, getting the 3 most controversial judges appointed and avoiding the ending of the filibuster which would have had newspapers all over the world squealing about how Republicans are changing the rules so they can TAKE OVER THE WORLD the Repubs are gonna give him a smackdown. PUH-LEEESE! :evil:

McCain and 6 other Republicans got the Dems to think that it was their idea to give the Repubs everything they want. Brilliant!

Don't let your dislike of the man interfere with the realization that he (and 6 other Republicans) pulled off a masterful coup and managed to save the face of Senate Republicans. :evil:

Nehemiah Scudder
May 25, 2005, 02:44 AM
He's due a smackdown.

He made Frist look like an ass, and Bush look like a slightly smaller ass.

2nd Amendment
May 25, 2005, 02:48 AM
Well that's an interesting Spin on it. In point of fact what we got was three nominees and a guarantee of filibustering of every nomination Bush makes for the SCOTUS from here on out. The Repubs rolled over and McVain, in his desire to damage conservatism, lead the charge. His political career IS over but sadly he's probably taken the Repub majority with him in 2006. He's certainly gutted morale.

One more example of the Dems demanding their way, even when they have clearly been told to sit down and shut up by the electorate, and getting it thx to spineless Repubs and turncoats.

rick_reno
May 25, 2005, 03:24 AM
Leap forward to the next Presidential election - your choices are McCain or the charming Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. I'm going to strongly suggest you visit your polling place with an empty stomach - or at a minimum have a pocket full of those nifty air sickness bags.

jdberger
May 25, 2005, 05:11 AM
:evil: In point of fact what we got was three nominees and a guarantee of filibustering of every nomination Bush makes for the SCOTUS from here on out. No, Mr. Glass Half Full. What you got was a guarantee that three nominees that were going to be filibustered are instead going to be nominated.

What you were going to get before was a guarantee of a filibuster of ALL the nominees. Then, the Majority would have had to enact the stupidly named Nuclear Option. This would have been challenged in so many ways. Perhaps a trip to the SCOTUS, perhaps the Dems could have run a groundswell of support like they did when Newt shut down the government.

The Dems were going to filibuster the SCOTUS appointment anyway. They didn't win anything. The Repubs did. They got 3 of their more contested nominees on the bench. And best of all, one is Janice Rogers Brown. There is nothing that makes a liberal more crazy than a Conservative Black woman. :evil:

ravinraven
May 25, 2005, 06:41 AM
As I've said before, Tocqueville [sp?] said, when he looked at our constitution back in 17??, something to the effect of "It will take men of courage and character to administer such a government."

Now we have Dems of no character and Reps of no courage running the show. Dems want activist judges so that they can thwart the bill of rights mainly [= no character]. Reps hide under their desks and cave in to them and call it a victory [= no courage].

A society based on individual rights lasts about 200-250 years. By then the voters vote their pocket books, MTV and glands. The anti-liberty crowd gets into control as they are about finished doing now and it's over.

I wonder what the anti-liberty crowd such as Mike Moore, Hitlary, and the list goes on, think their lives will look like once their "dreams" come true? One nice thing is that when facism finally takes full control, all the supporters who helped usher it in will be the first ones up against the wall. Maybe I'll get to yell one "I told you so!" before I bite the dust.

rr

nico
May 25, 2005, 08:57 AM
Leap forward to the next Presidential election - your choices are McCain or the charming Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. I'm going to strongly suggest you visit your polling place with an empty stomach - or at a minimum have a pocket full of those nifty air sickness bags.
Personally, I WILL NOT vote for either of those [insert lowroad names]. I don't care if I'd be throwing my vote away because it wouldn't have gone to a candidate that I could even marginally stomach. At least if I voted 3rd party in an election with those choices I have the feeling of betrayal that I have now.

A local talk radio host described this situation (and a lot of political situations) pretty well.
When the stupid party and the evil party agree, the result is most likely something that's both stupid and evil

user203
May 25, 2005, 10:14 AM
I truly believe that McCain is an Un-Constitutional senator with a Globalist agenda!

But remember it took more than him. There were at least what 14 others so called republicans to jump ship?

What happened to the darn Republican party of Newt?

Why is it that the jackass party is handing the republicans their collective hats?

The Socialist, know how to play this game, the so called republicans have no idea, or have no wish to...that being the case, the Constitution is gone!

Heck the 1st, 4th, 5th,10th, and the second amendment are all but gone!

Lone_Gunman
May 25, 2005, 10:19 AM
All this McCain bashing is somewhat ironic on a forum where the majority of people voted for Bush.

The single worst McCain idea, Campaign Finance Reform, was signed into law by Bush. So if you voted for Bush, you support the very worst of McCains ideas, right?

Henry Bowman
May 25, 2005, 10:23 AM
Leap forward to the next Presidential election - your choices are McCain or the charming Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. I'm going to strongly suggest you visit your polling place with an empty stomach - or at a minimum have a pocket full of those nifty air sickness bags. I hope not, but if so, we may as well shift the handbasket into overdrive and get us past that "awkward stage."


Is is indeed interesting to see the left's view of this "deal."

Vitamin G
May 25, 2005, 10:40 AM
I dont care who runs, I'm either voting for :

1) Condi Rice, dependent on if she changes her positions or not before then
2) Mace Windu

A vote not voted is the only vote wasted. A vote for "None of the Above", votes my conscience.

45Badger
May 25, 2005, 11:34 AM
He made Frist look like an ass, and Bush look like a slightly smaller ass.

They do just fine looking like asses. All by themselves.

As fiscally conservative, socially moderate, libertarian leaning Republican, I'm sick of Frist's and Bush's pandering to the far (right and religious) wings of the party. Those folks are not gonna vote for Dems, any day of the week. It's a waste/inefficient use of political leverage.

Our elected "leaders" are wasting opportunities, money, and our children's future prosperity. The environment, the long term economic health of the country, individual freedoms and liberties (for everybody- not just gun toting, heterosexual, Christian, white males :barf: ) are all suffering while they chase their tails. UGH!

Nehemiah Scudder
May 25, 2005, 12:15 PM
Well, they do if you actually follow what's going on.

I'm talking about to the general population, who's not that informed. Bush gets away with pandering to an extreme side because nobody's really had the balls to point that out.

This has shown pretty conclusively that there are Republicans who have issues with the party line, and who are willing to step up to the bat against the President and the Majority Leader.

It was a big selling point of the Republicans that the Democrats were "out of touch with America". Seems like they're forgetting that concept applies to them, as well.

One of two things have got to happen for the party to not get bit in the ass by recent events. Either the party has got to show some respect for the moderates, or they've got to squelch them.

They've been fairly effective at the latter, so that's what I'm expecting will be the fallout over this.

jdberger
May 25, 2005, 12:21 PM
I'm still waiting for one of you raving Constitutional scholars to tell me what in this deal was 'unconstitutional.' Please be specific for us non-scholars. :scrutiny:

MikeB
May 25, 2005, 12:28 PM
I'm still waiting for one of you raving Constitutional scholars to tell me what in this deal was 'unconstitutional.' Please be specific for us non-scholars.

The constitution doesn't give the senate the authority to decide who will get a vote, that's why they are presidential nominations. The constitution only gives the senate the right to consent and advise by voting for or against said nominee. This agreement, doesn't honor the intent of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. This isn't rocket science or anything.

jdberger
May 25, 2005, 12:43 PM
This agreement, doesn't honor the intent of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. This isn't rocket science or anything.

I'm gonna give someone else a shot at this as I have to run off to jury duty. If it isn't taken care of when I return, I'll answer... :evil:

longeyes
May 25, 2005, 12:43 PM
Our best hope may be one hundred years of gridlock.

In the interim maybe we can do something about the school system and MTV...

MikeB
May 25, 2005, 12:50 PM
I'm gonna give someone else a shot at this as I have to run off to jury duty. If it isn't taken care of when I return, I'll answer...

You can start by pointing out the exact part of the constitution that gives the senate the authority to decide wether to vote on a nominee by the president.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 25, 2005, 12:59 PM
You can start by pointing out the exact part of the constitution that gives the senate the authority to decide wether to vote on a nominee by the president.

That'd be Section 5, Clause 2. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

What we're talking about is a Senate rule, left around because its purpose is to provide a check and balance against majority party pressure. It's totally up for grabs as to whether or not they're allowed to change it. It's just a bad idea.

AZ Heat
May 25, 2005, 01:00 PM
Since I'm in and from AZ, I have to say that I have never met anyone here that likes or respects John McCain. The news seems to show them, but I've never met them. He has been the lesser of the two evils between himself and the Democrat. He has name recognition so people vote for him if they don't know what's going on.

Years ago he was involved in some real estate criminal activities that sent many to jail. He somehow avoided that one. He doesn't seem to follow the Republican core values and I fear he has a dang good chance to win the presidency if he runs.

It almost makes me want to get into politics to try to make some changes for the good. It sure would be nice to create a political party (what would we call that party?) that focuses on bringing back the purity of the constitution and the self-governing principles that the founding fathers built the government upon. Less government control and more responsibilities upon the citizens.

Anyway, another AZ guy here who doesn't trust McCain and wouldn't vote for him for anything!

Dan from MI
May 25, 2005, 01:08 PM
I'm a card carrying Republican.

That said, I will NEVER vote for "Keating 5" McCain, who is a freedom grabber of the worst order. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

If it's McCain vs Hillary, John Deadwards, John Kerry, or Chucky Schumer, I'll vote 3rd party(and would rather see Hillary win since she'll unite republicans against her). If it's McCain vs Mark Warner or Bill Richardson, I'll have to actually consider voting for the democrat

I hope Mark Sanford (South Carolina governor) runs myself. That's my first choice.

MikeB
May 25, 2005, 01:12 PM
That'd be Section 5, Clause 2. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."


Nothing in there about using such rules to dissallow a vote on a nominee. I doubt the framers would agree with that clause giving the senate such power. Sure they can setup rules on how votes are done, and such, not allowing a vote at all is a whole different issue.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 25, 2005, 01:15 PM
It's not blocking the vote, just delaying it. The Senate can end the filibuster with 60 votes. It gives extra time for deal-making.

MikeB
May 25, 2005, 01:23 PM
And since they can make the rules, they can make it a normal majority vote instead of a supermajority as it was for most of this countries history. I would contend delaying a vote for 4 years is effectively blocking the vote.

Secondly it's not even a real filibuster.

TheEgg
May 25, 2005, 01:26 PM
The DEAL reminds me of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers -- and the Republicans are playing the part of the Brides, without benefit of clergy, if you know what I mean.

Total meltdown of leadership, Frist stabbed in the back, Bush poked in the eye, Democrats celebrating a big victory, -- aaahhhhhhaaa, McVain must be really pleased with himself.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 25, 2005, 01:30 PM
And since they can make the rules, they can make it a normal majority vote instead of a supermajority as it was for most of this countries history. I would contend delaying a vote for 4 years is effectively blocking the vote.

Secondly it's not even a real filibuster.

Well, you have a point on it not being a real filibuster. There's something very romantic about the idea of them actually having to physically suffer a bit to pull it off.

Totally agree about the fact that they can change the rule. I just think it's a bad idea.

Because it's a bad idea, part of me wants the Republicans to go for it, part of me doesn't.

Henry Bowman
May 25, 2005, 01:31 PM
Secondly it's not even a real filibuster. EXACTLY!!!

If the Republicans would just make the minority actually filibuster, it would be over in a week. No rules would be changed and the Dems would look foolish for "shutting down the Senate" over a vote they were going to lose anyway. The Republicans couldn't be accused of changing rules or of foreclosing the debate.

hvengel
May 25, 2005, 01:45 PM
I agree 100% the real issue is that the repubs are too dammed lazy to make the dems actualy do a real filibuster. After all that would require them to do some heavy lifting and they are likely too busy getting fitted for $1000 suites or getting $100 hair cuts to do any actual work.

HankB
May 25, 2005, 03:13 PM
. . . perhaps the Dems could have run a groundswell of support like they did when Newt shut down the government.Funny, I thought Billy Jeff shut down the government by repeated vetos of the budget. The Stupid Party (aka the GOP) - as usual - let the democRATS get away with accusing others of what they themselves were doing. (And the funny thing is, if not for hysterical rants of the infoboobs on TV, most people wouldn't even have been aware that the government was shut down . . . which is food for thought.)

jdberger
May 25, 2005, 04:55 PM
Look at that, back from Jury Duty and Nehemiah Scudder has taken up the cause. Kudos!

From the US Senate's Web Page (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm)

Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


And HERE (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm) is a little history about the nomination process. MikeB obviously takes the narrow view of the Senate's power to nominate as a rubber stamp for the president. I don't. Clearly a difference of opinion. However, labelling the 'deal' Sen. McCain and the 13 other Senators put together is a bit of a stretch.

Finally, I agree with MikeB in that the Dem's filibuster was weak at best. It would have been nice for the Republican leadership to demand that they keep speaking without break. If it was so important to them, let them put their money where their mouth is... :evil: :neener:

longeyes
May 25, 2005, 05:13 PM
McCain should change his name to Cain and get it over with.

MikeB
May 25, 2005, 05:38 PM
MikeB obviously takes the narrow view of the Senate's power to nominate as a rubber stamp for the president.

Are you claiming to be able to read my mind? If so you're not very good at it. I never said the senate is a rubber stamp for the president. I don't believe that a minority of the senate has the constitutional right to more or less dissallow a vote on a presidential nominee. They do of course have the right to vote against the nominee

Rebar
May 25, 2005, 05:44 PM
I agree with those who said make the democrats do a REAL Filibuster. The republicans do this all the time, pass up golden opportunities to really stick it to the democrats, it's frustrating.

In related news, Priscilla Owen finally passed, after four years of democratic obstruction:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157604,00.html

Draco
May 25, 2005, 05:48 PM
The Constitution doesnt say crap about a 'super-majority' except for amending the Constitution (and that requires both the House and the Senate)...all you need for confirming Judicial nomiations is 51 votes. The Repubs caved....

Clause 2: He (the President) 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.


And McCain gets his 30 pieces of silver....

gc70
May 25, 2005, 08:40 PM
Even Dick Morris, a Democratic political strategist (and adviser to Clinton for 20 years) said that the way for the Republicans to win on the filibuster issue was to force the Democrats to actually stand up and talk nonstop. He said that with the intensity of today's media coverage, the spectacle of Democratic Senators reading names from a phone book and similar time-wasting filibuster activities would last maybe 48 hours before the country got tired of the stupidity.

If Frist has an ounce of sense, he will press for a vote on one of the nominess that the Democrats still don't like. And he does not have to call for a cloture vote. All he needs to do is let the Democrats keep talking, and talking, and talking...

As to McCain and the other "dealmakers" - I guess it is difficult for someone as important and powerful as a United States Senator to resist the opportunity for self-promotion and to actually represent the people's interests.

Partisan Ranger
May 25, 2005, 10:37 PM
Respectfully, no effing way McPain gets the GOP nomination. No effing way. I assume he did what he did this week because he loves to see himself on television. I can't believe he did it to get the GOP nomination. The base is pretty hot on this one. I wrote his ass off three years ago with McPain-Feingold. That is and was the most disgusting un-Constitutional piece of ????e in the last 40 years.

bjbarron
May 25, 2005, 11:28 PM
If the Republicans would just make the minority actually filibuster, it would be over in a week.

Yes, and the Republican leadership probably wished it had happened.

What actually happened was what politicians do best...kick the problem down the road. There are problems in this compromise for both sides...but only, it seems, among the activists in each party. The politicians gained a new tool...the threat of filibuster of judicial nominees. It remains to be seen what will actually come of it.

I think that they should have let them filibuster for two reasons.

(1) It wouldn't have lasted long, and
(2) the Republicans might some day need (and obviously don't want to lose) this new ability to filibuster judicial nominees - but the Dims would have actually had to try a filibuster, not just threaten one.

Constitutional questions aside, this is an example of both parties working together to break new ground in their quest to avoid anything good for the country. If they believed in the constitution, we'd have a machine gun thread on this forum and Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would be a convenience store. Constitutional questions addressed, the supermajority is called for in only seven instances...the filibuster of judges is not one of them. Any rules concerning the filibuster of judges is unconstitutional* on the face of it. What do they care? They treat the constitution like toilet paper.

Frist did not show leadership in this. There are at least 7 Republicans that might as well lose to Democrats next time for all the good they do. Republicans do not act like they are the majority party. The comparison of the cloture vote to the confirmation vote was a signpost of future problems for the Republicans.

Powerline says it best:

Here's what I don't understand: year after year, the American people vote for conservative candidates. But it just doesn't matter. You can vote for conservatism, but you can't have it. No matter who gets elected, government programs spiral ever farther out of control. And--especially tonight--one really wonders whether there is anything the voters can do about it.

*On the theoretical level, the cloture rule is presumptively unconstitutional, as outlined in a Stanford Law Review article authored by Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk, of the University of Southern California and Loyola Law Schools, respectively. See Erwin Chemerinsky & Catherine Fisk, The Filibuster, 49 Stan. L. Rev. 181 (1997). The conclusion that emerges is clear: laws and rules that restrict changes by future legislatures are unconstitutional. This view has been followed by the Supreme Court throughout American history and it is supported by compelling arguments. As such, Rule XXII is unconstitutional in requiring that any revision be by a two-thirds margin."

Bruce H
May 26, 2005, 12:34 AM
The democrats aren't stupid. They know they are dealing with suckers. True to form the republicans sucked again. Very short term limits are the only answer. If they are good enough for the president then congress can live by the same rules.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 26, 2005, 12:46 AM
For the record, It's not exactly a new tool. The Republicans filibuster'd Supreme Court nominee Abe Fordis back in the day.

mountainclmbr
May 26, 2005, 12:46 AM
Well, I wrote him and called him a COMMUNIST MF'er. I am sure to be on the dirt nap list if he gets elected. We can look to the Viet Cong for insights.

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 01:26 AM
Sometimes I'm amazed at the pigheaded vitriol that exists on this site. :fire:

Are you claiming to be able to read my mind? If so you're not very good at it. Really, MikeB? I can and you are lying.

The Constitution doesnt say crap about a 'super-majority' except for amending the Constitution (and that requires both the House and the Senate).... Really, Draco? Did you bother to read the rest of your post? How about where the Constitution states: "to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"?? Thank goodness, you are on the ball. You go! :banghead:

If you had paid attention to the earlier posts, you would have seen this: That'd be Section 5, Clause 2. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

What we're talking about is a Senate rule, left around because its purpose is to provide a check and balance against majority party pressure. It's totally up for grabs as to whether or not they're allowed to change it. It's just a bad idea. Thanks for playing.

MikeB? I'm still waiting for the original answer to my question. What in the US Constitution prohibits Sen. McCain's deal? Your reply of, "This agreement, doesn't honor the intent of the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. This isn't rocket science or anything." seems a little vague. Somewhere along the line of, "well, if you don't know, then you are too stupid to understand and I'm not going to waste my time telling you!" Am I correct?

And finally, mountainclmbr, thanks for enhancing the conversation with that witty little bon mot. Let it never be said that gun owners are profane Neanderthals... :barf:


FLAME ON!! :neener:

bjbarron
May 26, 2005, 02:23 AM
Any congress can make its own rules as stated above. What is unconstitutional is binding future legislatures to those rules.

For the record, It's not exactly a new tool. The Republicans filibuster'd Supreme Court nominee Abe Fordis back in the day.
Not exactly. Abe Fortus was already on the supremes. His elevation to the Chief Justice position was filibustered. It had nothing to do with his legal positions, it had to do with ethics violations.

The word was out that he was going to be in big trouble legally. A deal was made so that he could withdraw gracefully, blaming it on the filibuster. Eventually he had to resign from the court, got in mucho trouble, and not even the law firm he founded would take him back.

There as never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee until the Democrats decided it was a valid tactic.

The filibuster itself is a valid tactic for minority parties to protect their interests against a majority. My point in my previous post was that the internal rules of one legislature cannot be held binding on future legislatures...that is unconstitutional as sited above. I see nothing wrong with the filibuster, my problem is with the rules of cloture.

Rebar
May 26, 2005, 02:29 AM
The only way McCain will get nominated for presidential candidate, is if he switches to the democratic party.

Which, on reflection, might not be so far fetched.

Vernal45
May 26, 2005, 02:31 AM
McCain is no more, or less, a threat to the BOR than any Politican.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 26, 2005, 02:36 AM
Not exactly. Abe Fortus was already on the supremes. His elevation to the Chief Justice position was filibustered. It had nothing to do with his legal positions, it had to do with ethics violations.

Yep. My bad. I found out more about Fordis afterwards, and was wondering how to work it in.

So what are the proposed changes to the rules of cloature? I'm not a constitutional expert, but I do notice that "two-thirds" majority is used a fair amount as a means of resolving issues.

Headless Thompson Gunner
May 26, 2005, 02:42 AM
I'm still waiting for the original answer to my question. What in the US Constitution prohibits Sen. McCain's deal? The deal isn't what's unconstituional The Democrats' fillibustering judicial appointments is the thing that's unconstitutional here.

The constitution is quite clear on which actions require a supermajority (constitutional ammendments, expelling a member, veto overide...). Confirming the President's judicial nominations is clearly NOT one of those actions. If the Democrats get their way, the President must get a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate in order for his nominees to be confirmed.

If the Framers had wanted judicial nominations to require a supermajority they would have written the constitution to say so. They didn't.



I see a lot of people ranting about McCain and his backstabbing ways. I don't want anyone to forget that there were 6 other "Republicans" involved in this cowardly deal. DeWine (OH), Snowe (ME), Warner (VA), Graham (SC), Collins (ME), and Chafee (RI) are ALL as guilty as McCain!!!

This fillibuster, and the deal that allwoed it to succeed, is nothing short of a usurpation of the executive power. Further, it thwarts the will of the people, who elected a Republican to the office tasked with filling the judiciary.

The Democrats need to be reminded that those who lose elections don't hold the political power in this country. The Republicans need to be reminded that we elected them for a reason.

Oh, and this thing wans't a deal. It was a surrender! The French are nothing next to these 7 Republicans.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

bjbarron
May 26, 2005, 02:57 AM
So what are the proposed changes to the rules of cloature? I'm not a constitutional expert, but I do notice that "two-thirds" majority is used a fair amount as a means of resolving issues.

The concept of cloture is simply a vote to end a filibuster.

Rule XXII defines items coming from the Executive to the legislature that require a supermajority to break a filibuster (cloture). These items include things like treaties and executive nominees.

This rule was enacted in 1917 at the urging of Woodrow Wilson and was used first in 1919 to end a filibuster on the treaty of Versailles. In 1975 the senate reduced the required supermajority from 67 members to 60. (This is the nuclear option that everyone talks about, and the Dems used it themselves in '75).

The constitution speaks to requiring a supermajority in only seven instances. Everything else is internal Senate rules.

The furor is over the threat of the Republicans to reduce cloture on some of the items spoken to in Rule XXII to a simple majority of 51...specifically judicial nominees. The rule would stay and nothing else would change...although as I said before, I think the rule itself is unconstitutional. Advise and Consent could be seen as Filibuster or Vote...and the constitution (by omission) calls for a simple majority on this issue.

Nehemiah Scudder
May 26, 2005, 03:18 AM
Well, I thought that. But reducing the majority to 51 totally negates the usage of the filibuster. And you said that you weren't against the filibuster.

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 03:27 AM
Yeah...what he said ^

What is the point of a filibuster if you can't use it.

Imagine this...Dems take the Senate and President Clinton nominates the other senator from New York to the bench. Would you like the Republicans to filibuster? :eek:

ravinraven
May 26, 2005, 03:50 AM
The talk of Slickster becoming the next Kofi Annon is picking up speed again.

Let me see now.....Slickster running the UN and Hitlary in the Whitehouse. Looks like the handbasket will shift from overdrive to after-burner.

And we thought they did something great when they broke the sound barrier in that rocket plane in the middle of last century. Try breaking the sound barrier in a hand basket for real excitement.

rr

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 11:26 AM
ravinraven, I'm pretty sure that you can kick that one out of you conspiracy file. Members of the Security Council cannot be Secretary General IIRC.

TheEgg
May 26, 2005, 11:33 AM
Hey, Hillary became an instant New Yorker to run for the Senate, why couldn't Bill become an instant Bulgarian to be Sec.Gen.???? :D

Waitone
May 26, 2005, 11:33 AM
If Clinton wants the job and Soros wants it to happen, it will happen.

BTW, has anyone noticed how frail Clinton looks?

MikeB
May 26, 2005, 11:40 AM
Are you claiming to be able to read my mind? If so you're not very good at it.

Really, MikeB? I can and you are lying.


Either prove I'm lying or apologize.

[edit]
Ya know the more I think about this the more it pisses me off. You make a statement about what I believe that isn't supported by my own statements, then call me a liar and your evidence is that you can read my mind.

I demand an apology or that a mod do something about this.

thereisnospoon
May 26, 2005, 01:22 PM
First...I do not claim to be a Constitutional Scholar!

Now that that's out of the way I wil try to answer jdberger's question based on my own very limited knowledge and second hand information.

The simple fact that the Dems have held the nominations in limbo for FOUR years is the unconstitutional part to me. The portion of the Constitution that deals with this is called the "Advice and Consent" Clause, not the "Block and Maneuver" clause. NOw both parties are guilty of abusing this, but like everything else in American politics in the last twenty or so years, the Polarization has been worsening and creating these long limbo periods while Judges languish waiting for what is in reality supposed to be an up or down vote, not a compromise from the President with the minority party. Unless they can show some tangible reason for not serving the Congress is simply supposed to 'confirm" a nomination, not hold the President hostage.

This manuevering now seems to me to be more about future SCOTUS appointments, but others have covered that better than I can.

NOW FOR MY OWN OPINION:

The truth is, both parties are guilty, this just came to a head now as Justice Rehnquist(sp) and others face retirement and the Dems fear a packed court they can not use as judicial activists to pass their agenda.

Remeber I am the First General and Commander in Chief of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade <self-appointed> :neener:

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 01:23 PM
Ya know the more I think about this the more it pisses me off. You make a statement about what I believe that isn't supported by my own statements, then call me a liar and your evidence is that you can read my mind. OK OK...I'm sorry. Apparently the humor escaped you. Text is imperfect when it comes to subtleties. mea culpa.

And the rubber stamp comment stems from this assertion:The constitution doesn't give the senate the authority to decide who will get a vote, that's why they are presidential nominations. The constitution only gives the senate the right to consent and advise by voting for or against said nominee.

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 01:37 PM
thereisnospoon, we need to keep in mind that the House and Senate are governed by parlimentary procedures like those in Robert's Rules of Order. Bottling things like appointments and legislation in commitee are perfectly "legal" though they may be unfair to the bottled. Bills and appointments are routinely pigeonholed and pocket-vetoed. This is the game and this is how it is played. I'm not a big fan either, but I don't see how it is unconstitutional.

BUT...you still didn't answer my original question, no one has. Why is McCain's compromise unconstitutional?

The more I listen to the news, the more I like McCain's compromise. The subtext of it seems to be that the Repubs were going to allow the Dems to save face and if the Dems didn't take the deal they were going to get crucified. Owens is confirmed. Bolton is going to be confirmed. Brown is up next. Scalia might get elevated to CJ...this means at least 10 years of conservatism on the Federal bench. Give everyone a chance to settle down and SCOTUS might just pick up a decent gun rights case... :D

Rebar
May 26, 2005, 01:38 PM
Well, I thought that. But reducing the majority to 51 totally negates the usage of the filibuster. And you said that you weren't against the filibuster.
The filibuster is supposed to be used for legislation, and no one is trying to take that away. "Advice and consent" is not legislation, it's supposed to be a straight up-or-down vote with a simple majority.

ravinraven
May 26, 2005, 01:48 PM
"Members of the Security Council cannot be Secretary General IIRC."

I wonder why some folks are pushing Slick for the job. I'll bet they don't know that either.

So Slick will have to leave the country to get the job. Maybe he'll take Hitlary with him.

rr

thereisnospoon
May 26, 2005, 01:56 PM
Sorry jdberger...I missed the point of your original question and I did not answer it appropriately. Nothing about McCain's deal is un-Constitutional as I see it... :uhoh:

What IS un-Constitutional is the fact that the Senate members were NEVER given power by the Constitution to hold the President's nominations hostage...
If you don't like him vote no, but a at least let them come to a vote.
Now you referenced the "Rules of engagement, er conduct" these fools use in parlimentary procedue...I could give a rip about their rules!

The CONSTITUTION is the document to which I refer regarding this entire process and it requires the Senators to 'advise and consent" NOT HOLD HOSTAGE :fire:
The truth is the real loser here is Us and the Constitution as it is further weakened, we too lose more and more....

Does that do it? Or am I just a strark raving mad Tinfoil Hatter? :neener:

Draco
May 26, 2005, 02:08 PM
The Constitution doesnt say crap about a 'super-majority' except for amending the Constitution (and that requires both the House and the Senate)....


Really, Draco? Did you bother to read the rest of your post? How about where the Constitution states: "to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"?? Thank goodness, you are on the ball. You go!

You're right....my fault. I was too lazy to retype all that in. I copied from another forum I am on who's thread dealt specifically with NOMINATIONS, CONFIRMATIONS and Constitutional changes.

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 02:17 PM
Does that do it? Or am I just a strark raving mad Tinfoil Hatter? You might be the latter-and so might I :p . There is an article in National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505130811.asp) which is pretty helpful in understanding the issue. It may have changed my mind, even. Crap, I may have to apologize to everyone, now. :eek:

The gist of it is that the Senate is free to make thier own rules as long as they do not interfere with the rights/duties of the other branches of government. for example, the Senate couldn't make an internal rule that it would only consider judicial nominations in even numbered years because that would interfere with the executive branch's duty to appoint judges. Read the article, it is long and a teeny bit arcane but well written.

And Draco--sorry if I was a bit mean. Sometimes I gat a bit worked up. ;)

dustind
May 26, 2005, 02:22 PM
The single worst McCain idea, Campaign Finance Reform, was signed into law by Bush. So if you voted for Bush, you support the very worst of McCains ideas, right? It was that law and a few others signed by Bush that made me vote Libertarian for president for the first time ever.

It is amazing how spineless the Republicans are, and how they take everything they do as a victory when infact they are surrendering to the Democrats.

grampster
May 26, 2005, 02:30 PM
Well, Well, Well. This thread has lurched back onto THR! ;) I salute you snarling dudes when you look around a bit and then find something that seems to make more sense, AND is an opposing opinion, AND you actually humble yerselves, reconsider, apologize (when called for) and bring the conversation back to a gentlemanly dispute. Seek knowledge not walls.

This is a fine example of why this is.....The High Road. :D

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 02:35 PM
RavinRaven? You know why you didn't know that? Cause it was wrong. I did say IIRC, though. Here is a brief article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secretary-General) on the UN Sec Gen.

So, though there is a possibility that the UN general assembly could pick Clinton and Sec Gen, the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/elect-the-sg.htm) over the nomination. I really can't see China agreeing to a former POTUS to head the UN.

Boy, mornings are tough on me. :uhoh:

jdberger
May 26, 2005, 02:42 PM
AND you actually humble yerselves, reconsider, apologize (when called for) and bring the conversation back to a gentlemanly dispute. Not to worry, as the sun moves across the sky, I get meaner! :neener:

Actually, I'm off to get me a new handgun...after all the paperwork required in CA, i should be plenty hot when I return (good thing there is a 10 waiting period :cuss: :fire: :banghead: ) <sarcasm>

rick_reno
May 26, 2005, 06:04 PM
BTW, has anyone noticed how frail Clinton looks?

Hillary might need to get Bill out of the picture a year or so before the Presidential run. In the minds of many voters he still carries with him a very negative image - and that's excess baggage you don't want to be lugging around when you're running for President. I expect he'll die suddenly around 2006/2007 of something related to his heart condition.

thereisnospoon
May 26, 2005, 06:13 PM
Careful Reno Rick...your starting to sound like one of them there conspiracy theorists...... :scrutiny:

bjbarron
May 27, 2005, 12:10 AM
Well, I thought that. But reducing the majority to 51 totally negates the usage of the filibuster. And you said that you weren't against the filibuster.

How does it negate it? You can filibuster all you want...they were doing it for almost 150 years before Rule XXXII. The constitution specifically states the places that the founders thought cloture should happen with a supermajority...everything else are rules they make up as they go along.

The items called out in Rule XXII aren't the only things that get filibustered and no-one seems to mind a simple majority on those. Remember a filibuster only ends when they stop talking...no cloture votes until then. Even with all the filibusters during the runup to the War of Northern Agression, the record is 24 hours during the civil rights debates 40 years ago.

Why is it so important that Judges get filibustered now for the first time since 1776? Even Ginsberg got a 93-3 vote after only three months on her nomination, and she is the poster child for extreme....

She had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

She had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that she had proposed abolishing Mothers Day and Fathers Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parents Day.

She had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.

She had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employers work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, it was discovered that while operating her own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among her more than 50 hires.

If the Democrats want to filibuster let them...it wouldn't come to much. And the Republicans could do the same when the Dems are in power. Both sides are working to add new obstructionist rules to their arsenal.

I prefer keeping them honest with the constitution...seven places for a supermajority...period.

gunsmith
May 27, 2005, 12:18 AM
I will vote against him every chance I get :fire:

Jammer Six
May 27, 2005, 03:57 AM
How, exactly, does a resident of California vote against a senator from another state?

And how can I help prevent voters in other states from voting for or against my representatives and senators?

Sometimes, the things that get said on this board simply amaze me...

Waitone
May 27, 2005, 09:05 AM
How, exactly, does a resident of California vote against a senator from another state?

And how can I help prevent voters in other states from voting for or against my representatives and senators?That's easy. Money. Congresspersons of all species raise money out of their states. You can not vote in their election buy you can be // are a source of campaign funds.

Second, institution leadership by definition spans state borders. Don't like what McCain or Frist or ??????does? Treat them just like your hired reps.

I have no qualms at all about contacting someone else's bum and complaining about a particularly boneheaded play.

RealGun
May 27, 2005, 09:49 AM
If McCain doesn't scare people, they aren't paying attention. He is another my-way-or-the-highway kinda guy. His way is CONTROL. He likes power and isn't bashful about using it.

ravinraven
May 27, 2005, 10:03 AM
It was just getting exciting and then you do this! "...and bring the conversation back to a gentlemanly dispute."

rr

Mr. X
May 27, 2005, 01:17 PM
If Hitler had died in WWI, he might have been considered a "hero" for his bravery and service. If John McCain had never made it out of the Hanoi Hilton, he might also have been considered a hero. Just a thought.

Rebar
May 27, 2005, 01:23 PM
A&E will be showing a biography of McCain:

http://www.aetv.com/faithofmyfathers/

DRZinn
May 27, 2005, 01:46 PM
Mindless fluff, I'll bet without even seeing a preview.

Jammer Six
May 27, 2005, 09:36 PM
No amount of money will get you a vote in another state.

I don't care how much money you donate, and I don't care which candidate you donate it to.

Dannyboy
May 29, 2005, 12:04 AM
Here's a good piece on McCain's triumph and its repercussions.

http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/

Bolton Feels The Deal
A mere two days after "moderate" Republicans broke ranks with a certain Senator Frist (who is supposed to be something called a "majority leader," yet commands and deserves neither title), Senate Democrats have already begun to flex the new and invigorated muscles the Republicans inexplicably gave them. They have announced that they plan to filibuster the President's appointment of John Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations and, as part of that obstructionism, they are also going to launch into yet another document war with the White House.

The result will be weeks more of humiliation and defeat for the President of the United States, who, along with an even-larger Republican majority in the Senate, was re-elected resoundingly a mere 6 months ago.

By refusing to act like a majority, by refusing the mandate they have been given to govern, the Senate Republicans have undermined both their President and their party. We see no good reason at this time to continue to vote for Republican candidates for the Senate or to support their calls for re-election.

When the President was elected, he was given the power to appoint (among other things) ambassadors and federal judges; this was one of the reasons we voted for him and not his opponent. Now, a faithless majority in the Senate has bought into the MSM and Democratic myths that they not only have a duty but a right to obstruct the President's appointment power whenever they feel like it. The result is nothing less than a willful minority holding the electoral will of the people of the United States hostage. Worse, people from our own party have helped bring about this turn of events.

The Democrats need to be defeated in the Senate, and soundly. They need to have appointment after appointment rightfully confirmed by the majority so that they understand that they are no longer in power.

If the Senate Republicans cannot handle the responsibilities inherent in the majority, they do not deserve that majority. Watch, listen, learn, and vote accordingly.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal's lead editorial this morning nails the issue:

Republicans at Bay
May 27, 2005; Page A12

Americans have learned to expect little from Congress, and by that standard the 109th version controlled by Republicans has met expectations. On the other hand, anyone who hoped that the GOP would make something of its historic governing opportunity is bound to be disappointed so far.

Five months in, Congress can point to the following achievements: a bankruptcy bill 10 years in the making, and a class-action reform watered down essentially to a jurisdictional change to federal from state courts. That's about it. Among the 2004 campaign promises that aren't close to being fulfilled are making the Bush tax cuts permanent, reforming Social Security and expanding the market for private health care. Instead of any of those big three, Congress next seems poised to pass a subsidy-laden energy bill and a highway bill with some 4,000 earmarks for individual Members. For this we elected Republicans?

The Democratic/media explanation for this performance is that Republicans are "overreaching" and trying to "govern from the right." We should be so lucky. The fact is that they are governing from nowhere at all. Far from pushing their agenda, they seem cowed by their opposition into playing it safe and attempting too little.

The House lost precious time recovering from its blunder of changing ethics rules to protect Tom DeLay, while the Senate wasted weeks tiptoeing to the edge of changing the filibuster rule only to back down this week as seven Republicans undercut Majority Leader Bill Frist. GOP Senators also created the messy distraction over John Bolton's nomination, preening their ambivalence for media applause rather than confirming their President's man.

It's true that Democrats seem determined to play the role of obstructionists, especially on Social Security and in the Senate where the rules give them leverage. But Republicans have only made it easier for Democrats on Social Security by caviling and whining that President Bush is making them face up to this problem, and declaring private accounts all but dead almost before they were proposed. Individual Democrats are not going to break with their party leadership when they can see that Republicans are divided.

Pre-emptive surrender has also been the order of the day on taxes, despite the manifest economic success of the 2003 tax cuts. It took a heroic, one-man lobbying effort by Arizona's Jon Kyl to persuade his Senate colleagues to extend the 15% dividend and capital-gains tax rate for a mere two years. Too many GOP Members are cowering in fear over "the deficit" -- except when it comes to spending. That they can still do. The Senate blew past Mr. Bush's already generous $284 billion limit on highways, and overall federal spending is growing by 7% this year.
Any majority party is going to have differences, and compromises are inevitable. But an effective majority, and one that hopes to stay around for a while, has to be able to unite around some governing principles and face up to genuine problems. We'd have thought that for Republicans this would mean a philosophy of limited but energetic government when energy is needed, as it is on national defense and law enforcement.

But what is "limited" about a House Financial Services Committee that wants to increase the moral hazard to taxpayers by raising federal deposit insurance to $130,000 from $100,000? Or that finds itself united with liberal Barney Frank on a bill to let Fannie Mae continue to rake in private profit while exploiting an implicit taxpayer bailout guarantee? Or a House that can't pass a free trade agreement with Central America, while the Senate votes by two-to-one to start a trade war with China? None of this is "radical" reform; it's Beltway business as usual.
The Congressional year has its natural rhythms, and there is still time for Republicans to recover. If Democrats won't budge on Social Security, a decision will have to be made on an exit strategy that defines the issue for 2006. Mr. Bush's tax reform commission report in July will be an opportunity to lead once again on economic policy. There are also smaller but still significant victories to be had on extending welfare reform, allowing the states more policy latitude on Medicaid and letting health insurance be sold nationwide on the Internet to reduce the number of uninsured.

Above all, the fight over Mr. Bush's Supreme Court nominations will determine whether the GOP's Senate majority counts for anything at all. The voters don't expect miracles, but they do expect better than what Republicans have so far been able to produce.

RealGun
May 29, 2005, 06:37 AM
These articles don't speak to me. I am delighted to see Senators have some independent thought as well as action, what I consider signs of integriity.

Furthermore, the expectation that the GOP be truly conservative is just not paying attention to what the current reality is. On fiscal issues, there isn't a lot of difference. Without compromise nothing would get passed. They are all drunk with spending power, enabled by tax authority.

All that really is happening is that the Dems will not allow that the Bush administration can do, say, or propose anything right. Nothing objective about that. That is pure obstructionism and grossly irresponsible. It would certainly help if the WH were less confrontational.

As far as Bolton goes, how soon we forget how the Dem's pit bulls, former prosecutors in some cases, tore into Condi Rice. These people will get confirmed regardless, but the Dems want to make an ugly process out of it, causing candidates, all good people, to think twice about accepting a nomination.

DRZinn
May 29, 2005, 12:01 PM
If those idiots "filibuster" Bolton, the other idiots (Republicans) have to make them actually filibuster. That'll get it over with quick. If the other idiots can't find their balls, then they deserve to lose every time.

If you enjoyed reading about "John McCain is a threat to the Bill of Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!