mountainclmbr
Member
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.
John McCain is a threat to the Bill of Rights
- Thread starter MountainPeak
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes I'm amazed at the pigheaded vitriol that exists on this site. 
If you had paid attention to the earlier posts, you would have seen this:
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...
FLAME ON!!
Really, MikeB? I can and you are lying.
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:
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...
FLAME ON!!
bjbarron
Member
Any congress can make its own rules as stated above. What is unconstitutional is binding future legislatures to those rules.
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.
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.
Vernal45
member
McCain is no more, or less, a threat to the BOR than any Politican.
Nehemiah Scudder
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
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
Member
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.
bjbarron
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Messages
- 391
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.
ravinraven
Member
Here's a happy thought
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
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
Waitone
Member
If Clinton wants the job and Soros wants it to happen, it will happen.
BTW, has anyone noticed how frail Clinton looks?
BTW, has anyone noticed how frail Clinton looks?
MikeB
Member
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
Member
Unconstitutional behavior
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>
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>
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...
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...
ravinraven
Member
I didn't know that!!
"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
"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
Member
My mea culpa
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...
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
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?
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...
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
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?
You might be the latter-and so might I
. There is an article in National Review which is pretty helpful in understanding the issue. It may have changed my mind, even. Crap, I may have to apologize to everyone, now. 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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
