Pajamas Media

145 Comments

1. Ann:

I thought his lack of respect for the Constitution was clearly established prior to the election, no further evidence needed.

If we are to have any chance at all to deal with his obvious disregard for the foundational facts and documents of the United States of America, we are going to have to get over our apparent inbred need to act surprised when yet another exposing incident occurs. Focus on the issue: He does not respect the Constitution. He never said he did. He’s not going to start now.

So when is someone who has the authority to do something about him going to do something??????

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:32 am 2. TomF:

I understand the validity of your arguments for upholding the plain reading of the Constitution. It is also very commendable for those presidents that held to this reading. However, are we just being technical to pick at this point? Doesn’t the “saxbe fix” fulfill the spirit of the Constitution? Shouldn’t the president pick the best person for the job, despite some technicalities, like a little clause, birth certificate or something else?

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:35 am 3. cedarford:

I believe Mr Gill has found the most disregarded section of the Constitution, ever since the Days of the Founders. Or if not disregarded, interpreted since George Washington to bar office-seekers from the Legislative Branch only with a clear conflict of interest. Not those Legislators who faithfully discharged their duties with good faith votes on routine funding increases for civil and military employees pay, executive positions…

For there has been a steady progression of people from Congress who created the office or later voted in funding increases or decreases then step into those offices. From Hamilton and Jefferson, onwards.
That is for the Courts, the Cabinet, various Ambassadorships, stepping right out of Congress into a military position.
And one of the most common places you put a noted Senator or House leader, besides putting ex-Congress figures like John Marshall and Justice Jackson on the Supreme Court..is the high profile position of Secretary of State.

Their names are familiar from their days in the Senate, House, or because they went on to become President. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Marshall, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, Daniel Webster – and 25 other long-serving or distinguished members of Congress emplaced in just the Secretary of State spot, that either voted to create the office or voted to change pay or perks. Leading up to the last longtime Senator to serve, Ed Muskie, at State who in the Senate from 1959 to 1980, voted on 8 COLAs for cabinet members, Justices, what not in the executive.
No one gave a rat’s ass about “emoluments” when Muskie or for that matter Jefferson went to State.

Her appointment as secretary of state clearly violates Article 1, Section 6 — the so-called “Emoluments Clause.”

Again, no one cared to fix it, including John Marshall, both a beneficiary at State then as a secondary beneficiary as Chief Justice.

Think of it as an obsolete section of the Constitution, like so many other bad, disregarded sections not worth the time, money, and effort to fix by the onerous Amending process…not even worth the SCOTUS’s time to fix it from the bench.

It was intended to avoid clear conflicts of interest, like some Senator making a bill up to make Commissioner to the Seminole Indians or Customs Commissioner of NYC Harbor worth more than being a Senator, then trying to get himself appointed to that slot. Not say that any member of Congress that creates essential slots (more military officers, more Justices, executive Dept staff budgeted for by Congress) or votes COLAs is forever barred from service and appointment to office outside Congress.

Frankly, it’s another dumb Right-Wing ploy. Like the recent “Truther” junk about Obama’s secret Kenyan birth. The “Emoluments Clause” is garbage, as any Constitutional scholar will tell you, From George Washington through Bush II every Cabinet has had staff with Legislative experience in Congress and many votes of Executive funding. (20-year House member Norm Mineta) Only when a Legislator is caught trying to create or fund a post for personal or family gain is a conflict of interest triggered.

Right-Wingers thinking they will defeat 230 years of US history with a “But the Holy Constitution specifically sez”….argument to block Hillary’s appointment are dreaming.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:48 am 4. Paul:

I hate to say it, but this is just another blatant example of BHO’s disrespect, or disdain, for the US Constitution. Why his disregard for this trademark of American life is of little (or maybe no) concern to most Americans, is a vast and cavernous disappointment, and an astonishment with ugly overtones. I’m hoping and praying that early during his administration, he will disprove and disavow the image he is currently projecting to natural born and naturalized Americans who truly love this nation, and who actively appreciate the tenants of our founding documents, the Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights, as originally conceived.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:51 am 5. LOL:

When you bring into play all the side letters and decrees G.W.Bush implemented or failed to implement. Then maybe you will get some traction. Until then stay hypocritical.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:55 am 6. misanthropicus:

Soetero’s Constitutional Abuses (part “n”:

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time,” – Barry Soetero’s most excellent adventure continues with stomping on The Constitution which is very clear about the limits of the presidenbtial appointments.

So here we are, the two Democrat presidential candidates, previusly bashing each other for incompetence, expediency and superficiality now serenely break this country’s fundamental law – with media applauding (and, sorry to say, under the unattentive eye of the republicans and conservatives – see Limbaugh’s yesterday comment vis-a-vis Hillary’s appointment).

What we’ll hear about this fraud from Soetero – “Let’s not get distracted?” “It’s my staff’s fault!” “This was a matter beyond my pay grade!”?
Or, “You guys you better get used with this, since the buck stops here. The constitution doesn’t apply to me, as you know very well from my citizenship issue. Yes, the constitution prohibits me to be US president, but I managed to get elected and now I am the US president and you eat it! And it’s the time to shut off those pesky AM radio stations or blogs like Pajama Media, ok?”

Or what about breaking the 22nd amendment? Look at Putin, look at Chavez!
Unfortunately, with a Democrat electorate of the sad quality illustrated by the Zogby report/the Ziegler film, many more abuses like this will happen – and Cedarford will be here to gladly ratiocinate and justify the validity of the abuses.

Dec 2, 2008 - 4:19 am 7. Chris in Toronto:

To Cedarford: If it’s an “obsolete clause” then it should be removed via a Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, it still must be considered valid.

Dec 2, 2008 - 4:46 am 8. Valerie:

Give it over. There’s an easy work-around for this that has been used before.

HDS predates BDS, and it’s just as unlovely.

Dec 2, 2008 - 4:54 am 9. Craig:

Hmmmm…hold on just a Ruth Bader Ginsburg minute- didn’t Barack Obama TEACH Constitutional Law at the Univ of Chicago?

Yes he did.

Dec 2, 2008 - 4:57 am 10. Ten:

The entire government establishment craps on the Constitution as a matter of course, probably as a matter of getting elected and appointed, author. Was that really a question?

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:02 am 11. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: LOL & a Lack of Knowledge

When you bring into play all the side letters and decrees G.W.Bush implemented or failed to implement. Then maybe you will get some traction. — LOL

Obviously LOL is a recent graduate, if even that, of the vaunted American public education system. Why do I say that? Because he/she/it doesn’t recognize the difference between a ‘decree’ and an ‘appointment’.

And we wonder how an apparently illegal alien was elected to the presidency.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.]

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:04 am 12. fear Obama:

If we think for one minute that a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat controlled Senate would even consider impeaching/removing Barack Obambi or impeaching/removing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Well-
That is a minute that we all just wasted!

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:09 am 13. cedarford:

Paul:
I hate to say it, but this is just another blatant example of BHO’s disrespect, or disdain, for the US Constitution.

I can understand why you hate to say it, because Obama is just doing what every President from George Washington to Bush II (20-year House member Norm Mineta at Transportation) did:

Appoint legislators who did vote on various compensation matters or create new Federal posts by legislation.

It makes you look ignorant. An armchair constitutional scholar fixating on your layman’s reading of words and clueless about how this was handled practically and efficiently in 43 Presidential Administrations. (No dual executive-legislative service allowed, no obvious conflict of interest allowed. But properly discharging elected duties in votes on compensation of Federal officials is not a bar to legislators seeking other Fed gov’t appointments in the Executive, Judiciary, military, or Ambassadorship/trade officials, etc jobs.)

And which the Founders who wrote the Grand Rag themselves said was OK, as long as their duties did not create an obvious conflict of interest. Right Wingers choosing to say the Founders and 230 years of history are “wrong” in their reading about “Emoluments” will only look foolish as heck if they dredge this dumb argument up against Clinton.

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:20 am 14. Steve Gill:

First of all, Thomas Jefferson never served in the Congress before or after his service as Secretary of State, so cedarford’s reliance on bogus history severely undercuts his argument that we should disregard the Constitution because it is “old” and others have violated it before.

As to the issue of right wing conspiracy against Hillary, perhaps he should talk to Democratic Senator and Speaker Pro Tem Robert Byrd, who led the fight against the confirmation of Richard Nixon’s attorney general selection William Saxbe on the basis of the emoluments clause. Democrat Senator Sam Ervin of Watergate fame also voted against Saxbe. Presumably they were just part of a right wing conspiracy to lay the groundwork to oppose Hillary, who at the time had just completed a stint as a junior lawyer in the Watergate hearings.

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:33 am 15. GDT:

Hey Ceaderford,

You are missing the point – we “right wingers” have no hope or intention of changing “The One’s” choice for SOS. We are just making yet another point about his distain for the Constitution (there will be lots of other chances to make this point – I’m sure). I personally love the idea of having the Hildabeast lead state under Obama. She missed a chance to bring him down in the primaries and The Messiah is going to give her another shot at it. This is going to be a sit-com!

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:46 am 16. The Wizard:

The Obamanation thinks he can make up the rules as he goes, without regard for the Constitution, our system of democracy or our laws. This man is totally devoide of ethics, morals, leadership skills and credibility. His promise of change has been proven a total fraud; his cabinet is Clinton Administration, part two;and now, at a time when Americans are struggling to keep their jobs, homes and life savings, he goes out a buys his wife a $30,000 bling! Obviously, he feels he is above the fray and an elitist. God help us all.

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:10 am 17. Boris:

Clearly Bush and Hillary were conspiring to get her more money. Good catch, Steve. What would the world be like without the jammies?

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:37 am 18. Marie Claude:

hey Wiz, you forgot to mention the Caviar, oh yes your screwed, STOP whinning !!!

I didn’t see that the Clintons forgot to protect american interests as their predecessors did, they’v been around the whole earth with the american flag and arms, hey who is the patroller ?

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:54 am 19. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

Reading the comments of the likes of cedarford, Valerie, Boris, LOL, and, over on another thread, Robert Hurley, it’s blatantly obvious to the casual observer that none of these people care about the Law. They are, indeed, lawless themselves.

One of these days, someone will affect some act of lawlessness upon them and THEN watch them scream. But by then, at the current precipitous rate of decline into hell-on-earth, it’ll likely be too late.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ever people get the governance they deserve.]

P.S. I’m reminded that other dictators started their careers of lawlessness in much the same way as we’re seeing here.

And people said, “It can’t happen here.”

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:57 am 20. Anonymous:

“Clearly Bush and Hillary were conspiring to get her more money. Good catch, Steve. What would the world be like without the jammies?”

If you can’t make a counter argument without injecting an absurd strawman conspiracy, then you’re not even trying. I presume it isn’t hard.

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:57 am 21. Scott Gunsaullus:

Apparently, Obama intends to employ the Saxbe fix; the constitutionality of which has never been heard before or ruled on by the Supreme Court. In the words of our illustrious Commander-in-Chief, I say “bring it on!” The current court has not hesitated in the past to grant the presidency unprecedented power. In comparison, the Saxbe fix seems minor, considering that the intention of Article I-6 was to prevent patronage and graft which do not apply in the Clinton appointment.

I have another theory. Being the Constitutional scholar that he is, perhaps Obama made the Clinton appointment only so that he could reverse himself on legal grounds later. Such a move would limit the perception of a betrayal or snub while effectively nuertalizing Clinton influence over his adminsitration. Shrewd.

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:59 am 22. Ryan:

“Clearly Bush and Hillary were conspiring to get her more money. Good catch, Steve. What would the world be like without the jammies?”

If you can’t make a counter argument without injecting an absurd strawman conspiracy, then you’re not even trying. I presume it isn’t hard.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:00 am 23. Assistant Village Idiot:

So it is regarded as an important constitutional principle (Se. Byrd, et al) when convenient; similarly, it is regarded as a mere technicality when convenient.

I’m shocked.

Tangent cedarford – a lot of those Truthers were off the left, from the HRC campaign. Don’t show your own prejudices quite so blatantly, eh? It undermines any good point you might make.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:08 am 24. Thinking Person:

We are actually suprised that Obama will choose to disregard the Constitution concerning Hillary’s nomination when he’s the same man who is on the verge of taking away a private vote for American workers to unionize or not? You can thank the bleary eyed, uninformed, vapid brained masses that voted him in with no knowledge of his background or views. Obama is only doing what we knew he would do and has done in the past….whatever is necessary to gain control. We should not be shocked. Outraged yes. Shocked no.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:08 am 25. misanthropicus:

RE #3/13 cedarford: “[...] I believe Mr Gill has found the most disregarded section of the Constitution [...]”

Cedarford, there isn’t such a thing like “kind of pregnant” and all parts of the constitution have the same weight – and also your obfuscation brings to mind the scholarly splendor of the one who when brought to court argues that since he didn’t know that there is such a law like the one he broke, he should be set free. Great legal thinking.

Since Soeter’s team (and Hillary’s as well) was well aware of the legal precariousness of their move yet they pursued it, this situation shows, time and again Soetero’s disregard for law and that his arrogance is generated by a deep death-wish mind-set.
Are we stuck with someone whose main conduct drive is proving to himself and some sycophants that he can walk out of any difficulty? I’m afraid so, and from footman or captain, normal humans don’t want such a general.
Expect more, and worse, worse and worse from the One.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:13 am 26. tanstaafl:

More importantly, is President Barack Obama showing himself willing to abandon his sworn oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” before he even takes the oath?

I dunno.

I always thought Obama’s agenda to use the Bully Pulpit for redistribution of income through taxation…demonstrated, in and of itself, a rather glaring misundersting of the constitutionally mandated parameters of the job of President of the United State.

The President Elect’s obeisance to the Constitution has seemed to me similar to his obeisance to the wearing of a flag pin, a matter of convenience and pragmatism more than a devotion to principle.

And if he has one more press conference in which he says nothing, my head is going to explode.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:26 am 27. Jack Okie:

There was a comprehensive (and better, IMO) discussion of this at the Volokh Conspiracy, including “time” vs “term”, what “encreased” really means, etc. I believe a reasonable and constitutional reading is this:

If the senate votes to raise the the SecState’s compensation to, say, $150,000 per year, fully paid health insurance for the SecState and family, and a COLA, then no senator whose term in office coincides with the vote can be appointed SecState. If a senator is re-elected to a new term, then they are eligible as long as no further vote has occurred. If after the original vote the amount of the COLA changes due to inflation, no problem. If the cost of the health insurance changes, no problem. If the size of the family increases no problem.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:41 am 28. tanstaafl:

In a similar fashion to some members of the Supreme Court looking past the Constitution (to Europe of all places) for “enlightened” thinking on which to base their rulings, so Barack Obama’s personal version of defining Fairness does, somewhere in the recesses of his mind, trump any limitations or restrictions that might be Constitutionally based.

So, in the spirit of the “living document” and as an extension of decades of “postmodern”, politically correct and deconstructionist “thinking” propagated in America’s schools, the Constitution becomes what activist judges and activist Presidents want it to be, when they want it to be it.

“just words”, you know ? Subject to any convenient interpretation.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:42 am 29. rocketeer:

tanstaafl – I’ll get the band aides. Be prepared for four years of press conferences with the preening Obama saying absolutely nothing. His entire career has been to say nothing and leave all to the impression of the listener. Then he’s going to go out and destroy his political opposition through any means necessary and implement his personal agenda while telling us that he’s doing something else. Lord help us all.

Dec 2, 2008 - 8:02 am 30. B Dubya:

Look, I don’t want to sound selfish here, but please do not screw this appointment up. Constitutional issues aside, if she is Secretary of State, she is not half of the Dhimicrat Senate contingent from NY, which is where I live. Let me at least get rid of this carpetbagger, please. It’s the only bright spot of a horrible election cycle. If only he would offer Chuck something (other than SCOTUS, of course).
Besides, where is the Constitutional concern regarding the President Elect’s US citizenship? Noplace. It will never happen.
Suck it up folks. Take the entire package. Reap the full benefit of electing these people. It’s too late to have second thoughts now anyway.

Dec 2, 2008 - 8:22 am 31. Peg C.:

Wow, I thought everything Obama has ever said and done called his respect for the Constitution into question. Sure does for me.

Dec 2, 2008 - 8:22 am 32. susan:

craig
“Hmmmm…hold on just a Ruth Bader Ginsburg minute- didn’t Barack Obama TEACH Constitutional Law at the Univ of Chicago?”

No, not true, he was “present” there but all he did was daydreaming about becoming a president.

I dread at the thought that such a person could be in the position of “teaching” when he needs 300 foreign policies advisors (not) to tell him that russia has veto power at UN.

Even worse that such an idiot is president.

Dec 2, 2008 - 8:37 am 33. Chuck Pelto:

TO: B Dubya
RE: Soooo…..

The Constitution means nothing to you too, eh?

Your just another ends-justifies-means Dhimmicrat.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Dec 2, 2008 - 8:48 am 34. newton:

Don’t be surprised if he asserts one day, before the cameras and full view of the entire nation, “I AM the Constitution!”

Dec 2, 2008 - 8:59 am 35. Robert Hurley:

What a bunch of dopes! Thsi question has been raised when other Presidents have appointed member of the legislature to the cabinet by not giving them the increase. Does any sane person really think that any court in the US would prevent Clinton from taking the position. Only in lala looney land!

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:01 am 36. Robert Hurley:

Funny at the same time this inasanity is going on here- at the National Review there is praise for Obama’s appointments. This from Mona Charen –
“Superstition almost forbids me to comment on President-Elect Obama’s appointments thus far. The news has been so shockingly welcome that I’m almost afraid to remark on it for fear of breaking the spell.

Such reticence has not afflicted everyone on the right, though. Here’s Max Boot, conservative editorialist, author, and military historian: “I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain . . . ” Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, declared that the Obama administration was “off to a good start.” And New York Times columnist David Brooks has acknowledged that he is “tremendously impressed.”

If I were a left-winger, I’d be tearing out my hair about now.

The economic team of Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, and Christina Romer does not exactly send a “to the ramparts” message. Summers, treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, is known for his belief in free financial markets, free trade, and fiscal discipline. He got into terrific trouble as president of Harvard for implying that, on average, men are more mathematically talented than women (which is true but that is irrelevant in the Ivy League). They made him grovel for that one, and to his shame, he did. The whole scene at Harvard — I gather from Stephan Thernstrom, who was there — was like something out of China’s Cultural Revolution where the mob makes the professor confess error and beg for punishment. Still, if you want a centrist, Summers is your man.

Geithner is a Summers protégé. As president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank he has been knee-deep in bailouts over the past three months. But that datum doesn’t distinguish him from the Bush administration or anyone else in the mainstream of America’s economic elite.

Romer recently penned an article making the case that tax cuts can increase economic activity. Hmmm.

If the economic team is centrist, the foreign-policy team (and I pinch myself as I say this) leans a little to the right. Did you notice that in introducing his choices, the president-elect used the term “defeat our enemies”?

Gen. James Jones, Obama’s choice for national-security adviser, is a four-star Marine general who was commandant of the Marine Corps and Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (SACEUR), among other posts. Response to his nomination among conservatives ranged from cautious optimism to outright enthusiasm. “He is a thoroughly decent man” one conservative foreign policy analyst told me. Though his political views are not known, he has received the “Keeper of the Flame” award from the hard-line Center for Security Policy. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy’s (and National Review’s) Michael Ledeen — no coddler of wimps — calls him “almost unbearably delightful” in the two or three conversations they’ve had. Everyone seems to agree that he has high intelligence and deep patriotism. If there is a hesitation, it arises from the fact that he is, like Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft, a political general, and those have not always worked out so well.

As for Hillary Clinton, well, she is no Jeane Kirkpatrick. While it’s true that she declined to apologize for her vote in favor of the Iraq war, she did everything but. It was only last year that she told Gen. Petraeus that his report on progress in Iraq “require(ed) a willing suspension of disbelief.” She opposed the surge of troops in Iraq but then — this is chutzpah! — attempted to take credit for its success. On Meet the Press in January 2008 she said “[T]he point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Sen. Obama, Sen. Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.”

She has criticized what she calls the Bush administration’s “obsessive” focus on “expensive and unproven missile defense technology.” On trade, she has made protectionist noises. On the other hand, she is not Carl Levin or Dennis Kucinich or Anthony Lake or Samantha Power. And that, along with the other appointments, is enough to keep some of us smiling at a time when we were expecting to be in deep anguish.

— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:06 am 37. Robert Hurley:

Now if you want to waste more time why don’t you all review the question about Obama’s birth certificate. If you had any good ideas about governing, maybe people would listen to you, but when you bring up such questionable concerns, most people will delvalue anything else you have to say

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:12 am 38. susan:

robert, we are aware of your lack of ideas and concepts, but if we wanted to read a page from national review, we’d go there. No need to copy and paste to cover up your incapability to write a concept.

Also, have you heard of linking?

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:12 am 39. Ms Attitude:

We the people need to do something!!!! Commenting and complaining is going to get us nowhere. Four years is more than enough time for President-elect Whoever-He-Is to screw up our nation, our lives, and our children’s future!!! Any suggestions? I’ll throw my support behind a good movement 100%!!!

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:18 am 40. Robert Hurley:

Susan:

From your analysis here, i doubt you ever think

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:19 am 41. Bob Miller:

if she became a private citizen by resigning from the Senate, and was then appointed as Secretary of State, would this get around the difficulty?

Anyway, the real problem is who she is, not what her current job is.

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:22 am 42. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: Well

From your analysis here, i doubt you ever think — Robert Hurley

At least she can read English and comprehend. Which is quite a bit more than you can.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.]

P.S. When and where did you graduate from high school? If at all?

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:23 am 43. Ms Attitude:

Remember the saying, “keep your friends close but your enemies closer”? Obama is going to put the screws HRC….she’ll give up her Senate seat to take the position of Secretary of State…then he’ll tell her that it’s unconstitutional and drop her like a hot cake! Without her Senate seat she’s nobody to him!

Today I will leave work early and go cast my vote for Saxby Chambliss!!! I went to his rally yesterday and had the honor of hearing Gov Sarah Palin! It was great….but since I don’t have the messiah complex about anybody but my Saviour I didn’t get any tingling sensations or desire to faint!!! But it was a great experience!

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:26 am 44. Robert Hurley:

Chuck: When did you find time to study constitutional law?

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:43 am 45. cedarford:

Chuck Pelto:
TO: B Dubya
RE: Soooo…..

The Constitution means nothing to you too, eh?

No, I believe he means your “reading” of one of it’s clauses means nothing to him, or just about anyone outside the Right Wing Truthers.

**************
Steve Gill:
First of all, Thomas Jefferson never served in the Congress before or after his service as Secretary of State, so cedarford’s reliance on bogus history severely undercuts his argument that we should disregard the Constitution because it is “old” and others have violated it before.

Gill, I mentioned Jefferson in the context of Founders that helped create the Constitution then appointed (in Jefferson’s case”, men out of Congress that had voted on pay, like Senator John Breckinridge, who Jefferson plucked from that body to make his Attorney General) legislators to his Cabinet or made them ambassadors. I said that Founders like Jefferson that had drafted the “Emoluments” stuff had happily put members of Congress in Fed Office, that later members who voted on pay accepted office. Not that Jefferson once voted on office holder’s pay, though he did weigh on and vote on military pay and Continetal Congress pay pre-Constitution, that served as a template for pay after the 2nd, better Constitution was adopted.

BTW – the only thing severely undercut is your reading comprehension.

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:54 am 46. Thinking Person:

Look on the bright side everyone….Just think of the stories Hillary will come back with after her trips overseas. I think we should start a running total on how many times she claims to get shot at on tarmacks and how many times she is in fear for her life and has to run for cover, etc, etc. And then there’s Bill’s antics…….

Dec 2, 2008 - 10:19 am 47. Rashputin:

cedarford – “Senator John Breckinridge, who Jefferson plucked from that body to make his Attorney General) legislators to his Cabinet or made them ambassadors.”

Please post a link detailing the term of the aformentioned and when he voted on a pay raise or benefit increase for the Attorney General position. If the Senator in question had been re-elected prior to his appointment and after the vote, then he would be fine, it being a new term for that Senator. I am not as sure as you are that Brekinridge voted on any issue that would conflict as has Ms Clinton, so I look forward to your link to the appropriate information.

have a nice day

Dec 2, 2008 - 10:37 am 48. misanthropicus:

RE: dba Hurley, Cedarford, other Soeterotolls:

Every time I come across your posts it remind me the sorry figures interviewed by Ziegler in his film – inarticulate and uninformed, and this grounded in aggressive stupidity.
I understand that a troll’s mission is to disrupt a site/thread, but your conduct (let aside the level of arguments) has for long moved from incompetent to crappy.
Much you guys are you willing to do for a $20 debit card!

Dec 2, 2008 - 11:27 am 49. Robert Hurley:

Misanthropicus – Hey where do I get my $20. You mean I have been doing this for free when I could have gotten rich!

Dec 2, 2008 - 11:35 am 50. misanthropicus:

RE dba Hurley/PJM thread “Will Bush Bashing end after Obama’s inauguration?”/ #98

Robert Hurley: “misanthropicus – Since the courts have already accepted his birth certificate, I think any further comments by you wil lead everyone to believe you are a nut. Do you really want that? [...]”

Misanthropicus: “What courts? Hurley, I do appreciate your steadfastness in this matter, but I don’t confound it with intelligence and you don’t make any progress in that direction. So, all lawsuits against Obama were dismissed on technical grounds, i.e. lack of standing, and none of them addressed the substance of the case.
Now you have the opportunity to show that you can wiggle out from your position – inform me about a US court of law which has attested Obama’s birth certificate. One. Do it. Do it.
Show me a nut – otherwise you have to upgrade your tinfoil hat with a quivering egg beater for better reception of marching instructions from your SoeteroTrollDepot.”

Hurley, you keep baiting then switching threads without answering questions – why don’t you use your towering mental abilities to respond my question? Do it, pargon of integrity and fairness!

Dec 2, 2008 - 11:35 am 51. Linda:

Silly Hillie is not qualified to serve in the
secretary of state position. Selection of HRC for this critical post is proof that BHO politics outweigh sober minded selections. Hilly demonstrated her inability to respect Gen. David Petraeous, the outstanding leader and example setter of our soldiers. We should ask ourselves who Hillery is capable of respecting? Slick Willie, HRC’s hubby, picked
Ms Albright to head state—then he and she set the USA up for 911. Immature and inexperienced leaders are a danger in a dangerous world. Let us never forget the absurd spectacle and criminal act of the murder of those kids at Waco
under J. Reno; the epitome of politics trumping common sense to gain the fem vote. Bye bye USA?

Dec 2, 2008 - 11:47 am 52. CFM:

misanthropicus; TWENTY BUCKS for their retarded crap? Crikey! Talk about over-paid!

Dec 2, 2008 - 11:57 am 53. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: cedarford, Apologist

No, I believe he means your “reading” of one of it’s clauses means nothing to him, or just about anyone outside the Right Wing Truthers. — cedarford

’nuff said….

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:07 pm 54. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: When?

When did you find time to study constitutional law? — Robert Hurley

Civics class in the 1960s.

And you have yet to answer any of the questions I asked you. Which is typical of an obfuscating prevaricator such as yourself.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator, n., A liar in the maggot form of development.]

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:09 pm 55. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I’ve also argued Constitutional Law with a professor of such from Denver University. Indeed, a number of us at that General Meeting took her to task on a number of obfuscations, evasions and outrageous statements that evening. She left with only about a quarter of her ass intact after we chewed her out as a monstrosity…..

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:11 pm 56. Steve Gill:

Cedarford:

I am not sure my reading comprehension is lacking at all. I could diagram your sentences for you, but here is just one excerpt from your post that looks pretty crystal clear to me:

“No one gave a rat’s ass about “emoluments” when Muskie or for that matter Jefferson went to State.”

So how does that NOT reference Thomas Jefferson in the context of his own appointment to State? Again, he never served in the Senate or House, and certainly did not do so following the enactment of the Constitution. Thus, the emoluments clause could not have applied to him, as a matter of historical fact. Twisting history, and your own words, won’t work when there is a pretty definitive record available.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is not eligible for the appointment as Secretary of State under the clear terms and explicit meaning of the Constitution. Democrats will likely ignore the law as set forth in the Constitution, as will their lackeys in the media, but it doesn’t make it “legal” nor right.

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:13 pm 57. Robert Hurley:

Chuck – I am sure everyone is afriad of your rapier like wit and erudition especially on constitional law. I am so reassured by your credentials. Ever thought of appying to Harvad Law School to be a constitional law scholar?

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:19 pm 58. susan:

yeah, chuck, ever thought of appying to Harvad Law School to be a constitional law scholar? If you are black and democtat you have already 100% of the qualification to become president.

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:30 pm 59. Hillary Clinton, Emoluments, and Things Not Taught in Law School « Don’t Drink the King’s Wine:

[...] dontdrinkthekingswine @ 3:34 pm Tags: law, politics, constitution I sent a former classmate an article from Pajamas Media about how Hillary Clinton is constitutionally barred from being nominated to the position of [...]

Dec 2, 2008 - 12:36 pm 60. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Robert Hurley
RE: The Practice

Ever thought of appying to Harvad Law School to be a constitional law scholar? — Robert Hurley

Actually, buckie, I’ve probably argued more cases before courts and before military tribunals than YOU have.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’m ‘batting’, 500, so far. And I’m contemplating arguing another case sometime during the course of the next year. It depends on whether or not I need to invoke a Writ of Mandamus against the city government here….if they refuse to abide by their own municipal ordinances…..

It’s a lot like the Obama administration ignoring the Constitution of the United States, vis-a-vis Senator Clinton for SecState when the Constitution clearly says she cannot hold that office at this time.

But what do YOU care about such a stupid think as the ‘Law’…..

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:06 pm 61. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Still no answers to any questions…..

…you are indeed a waste of time.

Vaya con Dios…..

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:07 pm 62. DCLawyer:

There’s a lot of group think going on here. I’m wondering whether this group would be as outraged had PE Obama selected Sen. Lugar? I rather doubt it.

Doubtless, the same solution that has been used without controversy before (altering the salary to its previous level) will be employed and we’ll go about our business.

To understand why this is acceptable, let’s consider why the clause is in there in the first place – to prohibit the executive from corrupting Members of Congress. That’s not at stake in cases where the salary is reduced, so the original intent is satisfied by this solution, known as the “Saxbe Fix” (after Ct Senator William Saxbe, named as Attorney General).

The author of the DOJ legal opinion blessing the “Saxbe Fix”?

Robert Bork.

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:24 pm 63. Rubicon:

I am not really concerned about this issue. However, I am concerned about the Constitution, so, if it is written that way, then Hillary is not eligible for the office of Secretary of State.
My “real” fears on the Constitution are those that reflect Obama’s p[osition on that document. he had already stated he felt it was an oppressive document & we must all realize this means he & those like him will ccontinue to do all they can to circumvent the Constitution at any & every opportunity. Lets be real here folks, these guys want America to be a socialist nation & in the end, despots need the rule of law to be totally undermined for laws “they” decide are important & no others. Especially any laws “the people” think should be enforced. The Suprenme Court will become a rubber stamp for Obama’s socialist policies & only if we evr get his ilk out of office will we be able to restore the law & the Constitution to their rightful place as the founding legal documents of this “Constitutional Republic.”
Don’t hold your breath for the next four or eight years though. The Democrats in Congress are salivating at the idea of silencing anyone who happens to expres thier oposition to their actions. Desssent was fine for liberals, but there can be none tolerated if it comes from the conservatives of this nation.

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:32 pm 64. Robert Hurley:

Chuck:

Lets take a poll and see how many people want to hire you as their lawyer. I am sure Susan would. Who else? The Supreme Court is sure to cite your arguments in this case. I only answer question from those who are rational.

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:33 pm 65. Chuck Pelto:

TO: DCLawyer
RE: Who the Heck….

There’s a lot of group think going on here. I’m wondering whether this group would be as outraged had PE Obama selected Sen. Lugar? I rather doubt it. — DCLawyer

….is Senator Lugar? And if he/she is a US Senator, did they vote on whether or not to raise the compensation for US cabinet-level personnel?

If so, the same law applies, doesn’t it ‘counselor’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Lawyer, n., One skilled at circumventing the Law.]

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:40 pm 66. Robert Hurley:

Chuck, of course, is much smarter than Robert Bork

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:56 pm 67. Pat J:

I wonder if its just Constitutional law that gets some of you people upset or the idea of Hillary as Secretary of State.

Dec 2, 2008 - 1:57 pm 68. Pat J:

65. Robert Hurley:

Chuck:

Lets take a poll and see how many people want to hire you as their lawyer. I am sure Susan would. Who else?
—————————–
No.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:00 pm 69. misanthropicus:

RE #57/Robert Hurley: [...] Chuck [...] Ever thought of appying to Harvad Law School to be a constitional law scholar? [...]”

Why should he? With an alumn like Barry Soetero the school’s reputation is in tailspin.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:02 pm 70. Robert Hurley:

I thought you all might enjoy the attached http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:08 pm 71. susan:

misanthropicus, lol, that was wonderful

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:11 pm 72. Bob Herron:

Hillary is not Sec of State until confirmed is she? The appointment only becomes real at that point.
If she resigns as a Senator one minute before confirmation there is no constitutional issue.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:13 pm 73. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Pat J
RE: Well….

I wonder if its just Constitutional law that gets some of you people upset or the idea of Hillary as Secretary of State. — Pat J

…that’s pretty much MY point. Hillary might make a good SecState. But the Constitution says she can’t be. And the point is does Obama honor the Constitution of the United States, as his oath of office states? Or are we going to have to change the oath of office of the President of the United States?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. About representing you….an honest lawyer probably wouldn’t want to.

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:28 pm 74. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bob Herron
RE: You….

If she resigns as a Senator one minute before confirmation there is no constitutional issue. — Bob Herron

…have a future as a staff attorney on the Obamanation Team.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Lawyer, n., One skilled at circumventing the Law.]

Dec 2, 2008 - 2:30 pm 75. cedarford:

Chuck Pelto:
TO: Robert Hurley
RE: The Practice

Ever thought of appying to Harvad Law School to be a constitional law scholar? — Robert Hurley

Actually, buckie, I’ve probably argued more cases before courts and before military tribunals than YOU have.

Wow, not are you incredibly wise and a legal expert who “debates Constitutional law”, you are incredibly old to have argued all those cases before a military tribunal. The last, other than 1 at GITMO, having happened back in 1949.

Dec 2, 2008 - 3:04 pm 76. Chuck Pelto:

TO: cedarford the Dense
RE: Incredibly Wise

Wow, not are you incredibly wise and a legal expert who “debates Constitutional law”, you are incredibly old to have argued all those cases before a military tribunal. — cedarford

You are so dumb it’s incredible to grasp it.

Every second lieutenant in a line organization is on a duty roster. And whatever sort of odd-job duty comes down, you get it, if your at the top of the list.

I drew prosecuting attorney in a military tribunal dealing with a case of administrative law.

God. If you ONLY knew what you were talking about, you might be half-way decent in making arguments. But instead, your ignorance and pride in it just make you look….well….’stupid’.

Hope that helps….but….obviously, I have my doubts as to that….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Does cedarford qualify as a potential member of Densa?]

Dec 2, 2008 - 3:30 pm 77. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. If you ever get tired of me beating you over the head with your stupidity about my background and experience, just get back on topic.

I’ll be happy to beat you over the head with your stupidity there too. And, at least it won’t be all ad homs on your part. That’ll make it more educational for the others here instead of allowing me opportunities to teach you sharp lessons.

Et LA! [Note: Please pardon my French.]

Dec 2, 2008 - 3:40 pm 78. DCLawyer:

“If she resigns as a Senator one minute before confirmation there is no constitutional issue.”

I can’t say that I agree with that reading, because it would completely void the Constitution’s text on this point.

However, I think that argument DOES highlight the problems with a simplistic reading of the Constitution’s text with no understanding of the context and history. If you read the language literally and ignore the Constitution’s structure, purpose and history, you get bizarre results.

I fail to see how conservatives plan on getting back in power by trying to raise niggling legalistic issues rather than taking the issue directly head on. If you think Hillary would make a poor SecState, make the case.

Trying to turn her appointment on a legal technicality, getting the courts to do your work because you couldn’t convince the voters, well, that’s generally what liberals do.

Dec 2, 2008 - 4:57 pm 79. Obama’s Pick of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is Unconstitutional « America’s Watchtower:

[...] 2008 by Mr Pink Eyes  The choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is unconstitutional. Hillary Rodham Clinton is ineligible to be named as secretary of state according to the [...]

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:08 pm 80. Dave R:

Easy solution, skip the SoS and wait until there’s an opening on the SCOTUS. That you really give you pseudo-conservatives something to whine about. I congratulate you for raising the level of Obama hate higher than the worst that happened for Bush and the man isn’t even in office yet. Y’all need to relax or plan on having a miserable 8 years. In the meantime the rest of us will get along just fine without you.

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:23 pm 81. Steve:

Hillary Clinton has been nominated not appointed. She cannot go before confirmation hearing until after Jan. 20, 2009. She says she will resign her seat

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:41 pm 82. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Bob Herron v. DCLawyer

I can’t say that I agree with that reading, because it would completely void the Constitution’s text on this point. — DCLawyer

Does DCLawyer resemble a quarterback who hears the sound of pounding feet coming up behind him?

Just a bit ago, I got the distinct impression that he was pooh-poohing the notion that Hillary could become SecState, in spite of the fact that Article 1 Section 6 reads otherwise. And NOW he’s defending the Constitution of the United States against the onslaught of the Obamanation we see unfolding.

RE: Then Again….

I fail to see how conservatives plan on getting back in power by trying to raise niggling legalistic issues rather than taking the issue directly head on. If you think Hillary would make a poor SecState, make the case. — DCLawyer

He/She goes back to the idea that violation of the Constitution of the United States is ‘niggling’.

Is he/she schitzie? Or what color of chalk dust is causing him/her to hop back and forth in double-quick time?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A government of laws, and not of men. -- John Adams]

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:46 pm 83. Kitsch, Recount/Run-Off Magic and Perfumed Hankies « Obi’s Sister:

[...] Constitutional debate swirls around Obama. The Birth Certificate Affair. . The Dual Office Grab, Complete with Sidekick. HillO’State – Unconstitutional or Not? [...]

Dec 2, 2008 - 5:47 pm 84. Yaakov Watkins:

The clause was clearly designed to keep people from milking the government for large sums of money. While the $191,000 pay check is a lot larger than I make, it is less than Clinton would make in the private sector. There is no substantive issue here.

I’ve called liberals on nonsense like this and I’m calling you conservatives on this issue. This is the constitutional equivalent of jaywalking.

I presume that all of Obama’s critics here show their respect for the laws of the United States by carefully refrain from going even one mile and hour over posted speed limits, wait a full 90 minutes per ounce of alcohol to drive after drinking, and fly the flag at their home on at least the 20 days mandated by the US Flag code.

There are so many real issues to raise, why are you making yourselves look like idiots over this one. I have been a registered Republican for my entire adult life but you guys are enough to make me consider voting Democratic.

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:03 pm 85. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Additional Thought….

….about DCLawyer and quibbling over niggling little things in the Constitution.

I suppose that DCLawyer, based on the earlier comment would consider that only US natural-born persons can be president of the United States a similar ‘niggle’ and not worthy of consideration.

Then the Republicans could have run Arnold ‘the Governator’ instead of McCain.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. As it is, I am of the opinion that we’ve elected an illegal alien to the office.

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:35 pm 86. tanarg:

Obama’s already made it clear he HAS no respect for the Constitution!

Dec 2, 2008 - 6:51 pm 87. Thinking Person:

Can we all quit questioning each others qualifications to comment on these stories? Every one of us bears some sort of a qualification just by being a concerned American citizen. We can all bring something to the discussion here whether doctor, lawyer or Indian Chief. Now, carry on with why Obama is an affront to the office of the Presidency and is totally disregarding the Constitution……anyone? Anyone?

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:09 pm 88. Cybergeezer:

And now we clearly see that Obama is NOT a Constitutional scholar, but has LECTURED on the Constitution in the very limited area where the Constitution has a “blind spot” and omits how African Americans should be elevated and remunerated.
He shall prove himself to be an incompetent farce, and contribute to more weakening of Americas respect in the world.

Dec 2, 2008 - 7:51 pm 89. fred:

Everything about this man’s life is fraudulent, including his claims to be a legal scholar. It still amazes me that we are stuck with this guy for the next four years. The people who advanced his career clearly have no respect for this country, its traditions, or its Constitution.

If they did they would have insisted that he stop the shenanigans and release his birth certificate to the courts and settle that matter. And he would have been more forthcoming about a lot of other things.

But the under-30 crowd has no respect for the country and they went ga-ga over a charlatan.

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:01 pm 90. Pat J:

Got it now.

And I can understand the Constitutional ramifications of Clinton’s nomination as well as the reasoning behind the “ineligbility clause.” It was protection against undo pandering. And what we don’t need in politics is more pandering. And there is all sorts of drama involved with the nomination for the simple reason it in effect does violate the Constitution. But then the “Saxbe fix” will be implemented and all would be moot.

But the author’s premise of suggesting Obama has some sort of disdain for the Constitution is ludicrous. I take it with somewhat of a grain on salt considering Gill’s background as an attorney. But then again, being the open-minded individual that I am, it all comes down to another opportunity for Obama bashing. And preaching to the Pajamachoir.

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:27 pm 91. The Historian:

DEMOCRAT PARTY VERSUS KIDS
One of the key tests for the new Obama administration will come in an arena that is key to America’s future: EDUCATION, as noted at this link:

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-democrat-party-vs-kids.html

Dec 2, 2008 - 9:39 pm 92. susan:

dave r 81

“I congratulate you for raising the level of Obama hate higher than the worst that happened for Bush and the man isn’t even in office yet.”

Democrats are genetically deprived of intellectual honesty from birth and the above sentence proves it

Dec 3, 2008 - 1:15 am 93. cedarford:

Wow, not are you incredibly wise and a legal expert who “debates Constitutional law”, you are incredibly old to have argued all those cases before a military tribunal. — cedarford

You are so dumb it’s incredible to grasp it.

Every second lieutenant in a line organization is on a duty roster. And whatever sort of odd-job duty comes down, you get it, if your at the top of the list.

I drew prosecuting attorney in a military tribunal dealing with a case of administrative law.

Funny, Chuckles, when I was a military officer we called it NJP or Court Martial. We called surplus dolts assigned to a Committee to hash out administrative conflicts “part of that Committee officers on the shit list were assigned to”.

No military tribunals have been commissioned since the late 40s that were allowed to proceed to conclusion, save the case of Osama’s driver.

As for calling yourself a “prosecuting attorney”, sans law license, JAG staff would object. Especially with a 2nd Lieutenant butt-boy claiming to be such at the time. I think the words you are grasping for are “officer assigned to the prosecution” not claiming that you were miraculously transformed into an attorney tasked with pencil-whipping a paperwork problem into submission.

***************
Fred – If they did they would have insisted that he stop the shenanigans and release his birth certificate to the courts and settle that matter. And he would have been more forthcoming about a lot of other things.

Hah! I knew it was only a matter of time before the Wingnuts attracted Dumb Fred to the Truther ranks of the “Secret Kenyan Birth Conspiracy”. And why would Obama cooperate with that or the deranged “Emoluments!!” crowd. Far better to sit back and watch idiots dig their hole deeper, maybe invite the public to laugh at them..

****************
Yaakov Watkins – I’ve called liberals on nonsense like this and I’m calling you conservatives on this issue. This is the constitutional equivalent of jaywalking.

………There are so many real issues to raise, why are you making yourselves look like idiots over this one. I have been a registered Republican for my entire adult life but you guys are enough to make me consider voting Democratic.

Yep.
The public is in no mood for the nit-picking conspiracy crap from Right-Wingers. The major problems America faces mean an end to such trivial pursuits gaining any public support.

***************

Dec 3, 2008 - 1:42 am 94. vivo:

The game in this column:

Smart Republicans = Dumb Democrats

You’re so dumb, I’m so smart (repeat 100 times)

Oh, I’m so smart.

Now let’s go play with the second graders.

Dec 3, 2008 - 3:35 am 95. vivo:

“40. Robert Hurley:

Susan:

From your analysis here, i doubt you ever think”

Agreed.

Dec 3, 2008 - 3:48 am 96. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Pat J
RE: Saxbe Fix

But then the “Saxbe fix” will be implemented and all would be moot. — Pat J

All I know about the ’saxbe fix’ is what was reported here. And according to the report, as I understand it, it was because the change DID NOT INCREASE the benefits of the office in question.

Therefore, the saxbe fix ITSELF is the ‘moot point’.

RE: Obama’s Distain for the Constitution

But the author’s premise of suggesting Obama has some sort of disdain for the Constitution is ludicrous. — Pat J

Heck. If Obama was not born in Hawaii as reported by our friends in the DNC, but in Kenya, as claimed by his surviving grandmother, who says she witnessed the birth, I can understand his ‘distain’ of the Constitution.

Think about it. It’s an excellent correlation….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals. -- George Washington]

P.S. He’s talking about the Constitution, here…..

Dec 3, 2008 - 4:43 am 97. Chuck Pelto:

TO: cedarford
RE: I Stand Corrected

No military tribunals have been commissioned since the late 40s… — cedarford

Technically, it was a courts-martial. But I see a panel of officers empaneled as judges of the military form as a tribunal. This as opposed to a single judge situation. Personally, I don’t think the laity care much for the term ‘courts-martial’. It puts a nuance in their mind on the nature of the proceedings. Something akin to a kangaroo-court. And, in some cases, as in a drumhead court-martial, they could well be correct.

Both terms can be applied, but if you want to be totally, technically accurate, vis-a-vis the War Crimes Tribunals of the post WW2 period, you’re welcome to it.

RE: Prosecution

As for calling yourself a “prosecuting attorney”, sans law license, JAG staff would object. — cedarford

Well. The SJA rep for the defense, a JAG officer, didn’t object.

Especially with a 2nd Lieutenant butt-boy claiming to be such at the time. I think the words you are grasping for are “officer assigned to the prosecution” not claiming that you were miraculously transformed into an attorney tasked with pencil-whipping a paperwork problem into submission. — cedarford

Aaaahhhh…. Come on, cedarford, if you ever served in the military you can CERTAINLY do BETTER than THAT. You’re still WAY behind Colonel ‘No Slack’ Stack for abusing me….or any other officer of his command that his disfavor fell upon.

RE: You ‘Served’?

when I was a military officer — cedarford

Tell US about it. When? Where? What specialty?

I’m curious as to how someone as verbose as you have been here can be so dense on occasion after doing time in Service.

Did you do it in an airborne unit and bite too many trees because the pathfinders or USAF CCT’s couldn’t judge the winds aright? Land on your head too many times?

Or were you one of the experimentees in some chemical or biological weapons research project that went awry?

Take a ’shot’ during Gulf War I? [Note: I know some that did and strange things happened to them. Then again, I know one who didn't, because he was not under the UCMJ, and he watched a number of his shipmates who had to take the shot, get 'strange'.]

Inquiring minds want to know….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.]

Dec 3, 2008 - 5:06 am 98. Mike:

Who ever said that Obama ever respected the Constitution anyway? In fact on several occasions he viewed it as an impediment to redistribution of wealth.
———————————————
By the way, I hope all you rich liberals out there are going to pay a bunch of taxes because Joe Biden said it’s your patriotic duty to do so and I am waiting for my share of the free stuff Obama promised me.

Dec 3, 2008 - 5:57 am 99. susan:

morto (dead brain) why you are here?

if you think this site is not at par with your supreme intelligence (LOL), why you are here?

it is evident that you feel at ease talking with idiots (as you think we are). Evidently you wanna stay among peers.

Dec 3, 2008 - 7:08 am 100. SMITTY:

It seems to me that the reson for The Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution is because an offical is elected by the people because that’s who they wanted to govern for them. Now to be appointed by someone to another position takes them away form the job the people elected that person to do.

Dec 3, 2008 - 7:44 am 101. DCLawyer:

Yaakov

“I’ve called liberals on nonsense like this and I’m calling you conservatives on this issue. This is the constitutional equivalent of jaywalking.”

I can’t concur with the notion that a Constitutional violation should be ignored because it is a minor one.

In this case, however, there arguably IS no violation assuming that Congress enacts legislation to freeze the SecState salary at the level it was at when Sen. Clinton’s term began (what is referred to as the “Saxbe Fix”). In such a case, the “emoluments” of the office will be the same as when her term began.

One can argue that any increase, even one later repealed, triggers this provision. Given that cabinet officers get a routine cost of living raises (as I believe this one was – someone correct me if I am wrong on this), this would mean no Member of Congress could ever get appointed to a Cabinet post.

There are legal scholars on both sides of this. For instance, Eugene Volokh (Volokh Conspiracy blog, UCLA Law School) believes the Saxbe fix takes care of this problem while John O’Conner (Steptoe and Johnson) and Micheal Stokes Paulsen (Univ of St Thomas Law School) don’t.

Note: Robert Bork says Saxbe Fix OK – Robert Byrd and Justice Breyer says Saxbe doesn’t fly. I’ll let the readers of this blog decide who has more credibility.

I think the main point I’d like to make is this – when there’s a good case that its not unconstitutional, move on. Don’t turn a real debate like should HRC be Sec State into a technical legal debate. Note that when there’s NOT a good case to be made that an action is Constitutional, the action should be opposed regardless of how minor the clause is as upholding the Constitution (the law of the land) is an important goal in and of itself.

Dec 3, 2008 - 8:13 am 102. DCLawyer:

Smitty,

“It seems to me that the reson for The Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution is because an offical is elected by the people because that’s who they wanted to govern for them. Now to be appointed by someone to another position takes them away form the job the people elected that person to do.”

I’m not really sure where you’re going with this.

I guess we can’t let elected officials resign then? They must serve their term until it expires or they die? If that’s what the emoluments clause means, it sure wasn’t written very well.

Wouldn’t you rather have someone who was elected (and thus having faced the voters) be placed in a high appointive office than someone who hadn’t?

Dec 3, 2008 - 8:17 am 103. Chuck Pelto:

TO: vivo
RE: Playtime

Now let’s go play with the second graders. — vivo

Go ahead. They’ve been waiting for you outside….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Am I getting smart with you?

How would you know?]

Dec 3, 2008 - 8:31 am 104. Thinking Person:

Is there any way that Nancy Pelosi’s Speaker of the House position goes against the Constitution? In my humble opinion she is at the heart of all that is wrong with Congress right now. She is on the verge of pushing through her own agenda including card check and the Fairness Doctrine. I’m hoping one of the wonderful essayists here will write an expose on her willingness to at times go against her own party to fulfill her own agenda. Just a thought.

Dec 3, 2008 - 9:07 am 105. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Thinking Person
RE: Pelosi

Is there any way that Nancy Pelosi’s Speaker of the House position goes against the Constitution? — Thinking Person

Not that I’m aware of.

In my humble opinion she is at the heart of all that is wrong with Congress right now. — Thinking Person

That could well be true, but the Californiacs put here in Congress of their own free will. And the Dimocrats there made her the Speaker of the Hosue, which is in their authority at this time.

I’m hoping one of the wonderful essayists here will write an expose on her willingness to at times go against her own party to fulfill her own agenda. — Thinking Person

Maybe Daily Kos?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Quill: An instrument of torture yielded by a goose and wielded by an ass.]

Dec 3, 2008 - 9:21 am 106. Chuck Pelto:

Dang!

Another misplaced right-carrot…..

Dec 3, 2008 - 9:22 am 107. Rashputin:

DCLawyer – “Robert Bork says Saxbe Fix OK – Robert Byrd and Justice Breyer says Saxbe doesn’t fly.”

The more I think about this, the more I think that Obama may have appointed her knowing that she wouldn’t pass muster. I can’t figure out why he really wants her as SoS, so, maybe he doesn’t.

Regards

Dec 3, 2008 - 9:40 am 108. Thinking Person:

Chuck…No stomach for sarcasm? I’m guessing you were kidding about the dailyKOs right? Kind of like asking the Huffington Post to do an open book on Billery. You never said if you were for a Pelosi investigation or not. Surely wanting Pelosi to be an open book on why she’s desperate to pay off the unions would make for a good read right? Now you see my point right? Sorry you’re er “misplaced carrot” comment was underutilized here. Put it back in your repetoire and save it for your next hapless victim. I await your thoughts on Pelosi though……

Dec 3, 2008 - 10:08 am 109. Charlie:

NO, I am not a lawyer, I do not write a column for any newspaper or magazine. I did not go to a university such as Harvard, just a local state college. I did graduate but with only an Assoc. Degree in the medical field. I am not as well-versed as so many of you are, but, I am an American. Born and raised in my United States of America just like most of you. I am an Army-brat,and raised to love the Constitution and my country. I was taught to respect both. Perhaps you may think I am not qualified to join in on all the discussions and bantering I’ve been reading in this debate. Maybe I am not,but please, keep an open mind and some respect for my thoughts too. I do appreciate it. I know we are to keep politics,religion,and science separated. But, sometimes it is difficult, since we are a Holistic human being,(holistic meaning whole, not Holy). I am a Christian and I do care what happens to my country. What is happening now is an atrocity in our government!!!!! Obamaination is what is happening! I agree with so many of you concerning what he will do to our country with his “hidden agenda”. I am not sure any of you are Christians or have any religious beliefs,but I do believe that what the Bible has foretold throughout the book and in Revelations,that, unfortunately, obama is part of what is happening. Please, before you all jump on me and what I am writing, research the Bible, listen,honestly and openly to what biblical scholars have been saying for years. You may not agree,but be fair and at least respect these thoughts as you like to be respected for who you are. Thank you.

I wonder if this Obamanation (along with his wife)is a soon-to-be dictator,anti-christ,does he think he is a God to be worshiped? I think all the above. I have never seen any politician so arrogant with the nose in the air,I am better than you outershell,and worse inside that shell of a man. I am deeply ashamed of my countrymen who voted for such a person to lead our great nation. Lead us into what?

And lest we forget, HE IS ALSO PART CAUCASIAN!!! Of course, that little bit of information is being ignored. Well, I could go on for a long time about this,but that is like beating a dead horse. IF any of you do pray,now is the time to pray fervently, your future, as well as mine, is in frighteningly scary hands.
I admire all of you for being so informed about so many of these issues. I don’t dig as deeply as you do. So, my comments are limited to what I do know and believe. There isn’t much that I can do as one person or as a layperson, but all of you are so educated and involved in the law, you as americans can pull rank and do something about some of his shenanigans. If so, God Bless you and good luck.

Dec 3, 2008 - 10:32 am 110. Charlie:

I am sorry, I forgot to comment on Hillarity! She also has no regard for the Constitution,or the people of this country. I agree that she has her own agenda too, and is wise like a fox to use any means to make it happen! That includes sculking in dark places with obamanation to ignore the words our forefathers wrote as law, and put her in with all the snakes in the grass. Maybe her agenda and his will clash!!! That could bring them both down. I guess we will have to just wait and see. This could be a good movie!

Dec 3, 2008 - 10:43 am 111. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Thinking Person
RE: Sarcasm

No stomach for sarcasm? I’m guessing you were kidding about the dailyKOs right? — Thinking Person

Actually, I was being sarcastic. Sorry. I don’t know how to get the Smilies to work here in order to properly indicate such.

Then there was the tagline offered to cedarford within the last 24 hours….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.]

Dec 3, 2008 - 11:16 am 112. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Charlie
RE: Try…

And lest we forget, HE IS ALSO PART CAUCASIAN!!! Of course, that little bit of information is being ignored. — Charlie

…not to be such a racist.

I don’t care what The One’s genetics consist of. I just care if he was REALLY born in Kenya, like is grandmother claims.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’d have voted for Condi Rice for President, if she’d been on the ticket.

But not Colin Powell, after I figured out HE was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who approved the untested vaccinations given to the military during Gulf War 1, which are suspected of causing Gulf War Syndrome.

Dec 3, 2008 - 11:20 am 113. Sean:

I am no lawyer, I am a business man by education and experience. I couldn’t tell you whether it was constitutional or not. Those debates are left to the many lawyers “serving” in Congress. What a shame, becuase we certainly can’t trust any of them, well practically any of them anyway. My point is this, none of us have a vote in this process, and if any of you try to convince me that Congress respects our wishes as voters…I will point you to the bailout vote. In my humble (read non-legally trained-but common sense seeking)opinion our government worked perfectly (as close as could be expected) until after the first vote. 1. Pres. saw a problem and suggested a general idea to fix it. 2. Congress worked out the legislative details. 3. The PEOPLE voted it down by faxes, emails, phone calls etc.
4. Congress voted it down for fear of their jobs.
then it all went to hell…..we spent another 150 billion (or was is only a 100 billion LOL) on ridiculous programs designed to “buy” the votes of senators by rewarding their lobbyists, which in turn allows them more money in order to “buy” more votes next election from the support of those same lobbyists. Can anyone tell me where I am missing the point here?

In other words, why are we arguing about problems we can’t solve, when instead we should be educating our public to the gross fact that neither party is a true “choice” for the public. they both seem to serve the same lobbyists (at least the big one’s anyway) and they all want to retain power at any cost. Am I way of base here or are we not missing the forest for the tree’s sort of thing.

Lastly, to anyone who is actually still reading this (LOL) trust in Obama is misplaced, it should be earned before, not hoped for afterwards, in reference to the election.
State’s Rights!!
Alexander Tyler predicted this eventual demise of our nation, sad he was so dead on over 200 years ago and yet we can’t see it!!!

Just a G.M. of another small business Obama doesn’t really care about.

Dec 3, 2008 - 11:21 am 114. Thinking Person:

Charlie…..Your post saddened me. As an American, you have just as much right to your opinion as anybody here. One person, one vote. I’ll let others comment on the biblical context as I think everyone’s opinions be they Republican or Democrat vary greatly. It is a trying time for our nation but we’ve been through them before and come out better for it. Right now patriots are needed more than fearmongers. You as a “layperson” can do just as much as an Ivy educated person. Joe the Plumber comes to mind. He almost single-handedly brought Obama down. I have a feeling if the mainstream media wasn’t driving Obama’s train, Joe just might have succeeded! Now is when your country needs you most. Don’t give up the fight just yet. Better days are coming.

Dec 3, 2008 - 11:21 am 115. Sean:

educate yourself, debate your opinions, speak often and wisely.
Any of us can do this, should we choose to.
Charlie, this is for you. don’t give up, we can’t afford to!

Dec 3, 2008 - 11:30 am 116. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: The Situation…

….is gathering attention.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. As Charlie suggests….prayer would help….

Dec 3, 2008 - 2:30 pm 117. Rigidflexibility:

Laws, from my observation, do not apply to democrats. Therefore it this entire discussion is pointless. An Example is Congressman Jefferson Davis. When is his trial? Three years and counting.

Dec 3, 2008 - 7:41 pm 118. cedarford:

Joe the Plumber comes to mind. He almost single-handedly brought Obama down. I have a feeling if the mainstream media wasn’t driving Obama’s train, Joe just might have succeeded!

That’s some powerful delusional thinking. Obama won 365 electoral votes compared to McCain’s 173, and only major demographics McCain carried were rural whites, white men in general, and voters over the age of 65.

Joe the Plumber did little for McCain except add a few more votes in States McCain won, did nothing for McCain in his home state or all the Pennsylvania rallies they dragged “Joe” to. Same with Palin, though she “carried” Alaska.

Yes the media puffed Obama, they also puffed McCain “Mr POW” up despite warnings that he was warmed over Bob Dole – and dumb, incoherent, not widely liked, and not rooted in principle in a way Dole never was. The media helped gun down Hillary & Romney…but people had a good chance to see Obama and Mccain head-to-head without the sliming the media did earlier on Romney, Hillary, Fred, and Rudy…and they picked Obama as the better candidate between the two.

Dec 3, 2008 - 9:10 pm 119. Hilarious Stuff:

Absolutely hilarious stuff!! He is a President Elect, not the President (until January) and he nominated HRC for a position that hasn’t been confirmed by Congress. Maybe you should concentrate your efforts on finding those WMD’s.

Dec 3, 2008 - 9:50 pm 120. Inspired Republican/Business Student:

This is my first time on this website, and also my first comment.

First of all I have to say that this is the best blog site I have found, not only do we have rational news that expresses the truth, but we get to make fun of Democrats (vivo). Let me just begin to say that Obama’s choice of Clinton shows how ignorant and blind the Democratic voters are. Obama ran his primary campaign on the fact that Clinton’s foreign policy was a failed, unreliable, and an irrational way of thinking. NOW he appoints her to Secretary of State so they can loly gag around the world and preach a policy that no one wants to hear. I say this because I despite the Clinton’s. The only good that might come out of this is that we might get hilarious stories from her such as the one where snipers were shooting at her (so hopefully I can laugh a little).

I do though admit I like the fact that he kept Robert Gates as Defense Secretary. This shows that he might actually govern from the middle and not like a far left loon that he portrayed to be (or might be).

Down with the far left loons….Go O’Reily

to be continued…..

Dec 3, 2008 - 11:14 pm 121. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Hilarious Stuff
RE: [OT] WMDs

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts on finding those WMD’s. — Hilarious Stuff

Maybe YOU should pay more attention to RELIABLE news sources.

Where do you think the Syrian’s got the tech to start their own nuclear weapons project and get it to the point that the Israelis had to bomb IT before they bomb the Iranian project? Could the Syrian’s REALLY have advanced so far so fast ahead of the Iranians without a sudden influx of tech and materials?

Not to forget how a Sudanese minister complained about the Syrians storing chemical weapons in Sudan shortly after Hussein was overthrown. And were testing their effectiveness in Darfur in 2004. See THIS.

Then there’s the corroborating report from a captured and cooperative former general in Hussein’s army about how many weapons were flown out before the US invasion. See HERE.

That’s just a taste. I’ve also got items about how Wilson-Plame lied regarding the Yellow Cake Hussein had bought.

’nuff said….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[NEWS! Syrian head seeks arms]

Dec 4, 2008 - 3:37 am 122. The Hillary Selection and The Emoluments Clause :: Thoughts On God, Politics and Man:

[...] Clinton’s appointment to the “civil Office” of secretary of state constitutes an appointment to an office for which “the Emoluments whereof” shall have been increased during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to legally bar her appointment, assuming the Constitution matters to the next president. Full Post [...]

Dec 4, 2008 - 4:29 am 123. Jesus St. Jesus:

Considering the disrespect for OUR Constitution the current resdident of the Oval Office has exhibited for 8 years, THIS is newsworthy in your world?

Grow a pair and grow up.

Dec 4, 2008 - 4:36 am 124. Jesus St. Jesus:

To Chuck P,

Foxnews as an example? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…

Dec 4, 2008 - 4:39 am 125. Chuck Pelto:

TO: JSJ
RE: Yes…

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight — JSJ

…RIGHT!

What’s the matter? Are you using English as a tertiary language? Or are you calling me a liar?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Hmmmm….

Grow a pair and grow up. — JSJ

….looks like SERIOUS ‘projection’ with that playground comment.

Dec 4, 2008 - 9:33 am 126. misanthropicus:

It took a few days ’till CNN eventually decided that Soetero’s latest maight be newsworthy, after all –

WASHINGTON (CNN), Th/12/04-08/1:pm — Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly approve of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but will the founding fathers veto this popular addition to Barack Obama’s “team of rivals”?
President-elect Barack Obama named Sen. Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state Monday.
Yet, according to one conservative interpretation of the Constitution: Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution says the following: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”
Translation: A lawmaker cannot fill a position if the salary for that position has been raised during that lawmaker’s term in office.

In January, President Bush signed an executive order increasing the salary for the secretary of state and other Cabinet positions by $4,700. Hillary Clinton has been in the Senate since January 2001.
Case closed, says the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.

Most approve of Obama’s Cabinet picks, poll shows
“There’s no getting around the Constitution’s ineligibility clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. Watch: Bill Clinton talks about his wife’s nomination »

“No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment.”

Not so fast, most legal scholars say. In the past, lawmakers have found a way around the clause, with Congress changing the salary of the office in question back to what it originally was. It happened when Ohio Sen. William Saxbe was named President Nixon’s attorney general in 1974 and again when Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen became President Clinton’s Treasury secretary in 1993.

“There are many ways around this problem,” CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted. “One is for Congress to vote a lower salary. Another way is for Hillary Clinton simply to accept a lower salary. Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state. Watch: Analysts weigh in on Clinton pick »

“This is not going to be an impediment to her being secretary of state,” Toobin argued. One Clinton aide said that both Clinton and Obama were aware of the issue when he announced her as his choice for secretary of state. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office said congressional Democrats are moving forward with a measure similar to what has been done before.

Judicial Watch takes issue with the precedent. “We think it’s inadequate,” Fitton said. “You can’t amend the Constitution through legislation like that. … The Constitution doesn’t have any caveats. It’s plain as day.”

Fitton pointed to what President Reagan did when facing a similar situation. “Ronald Reagan took a look at this clause and decided against appointing Orrin Hatch, who was a senator and still is, to the Supreme Court,” he noted.

Whatever the activists, scholars or pundits say, the public has apparently made up its mind. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 1-2 indicated that 71 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s nomination of Clinton as his secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans split evenly on the pick.

Dec 4, 2008 - 11:33 am 127. Chuck Pelto:

TO: misanthropicus, et al.
RE: The Past

Not so fast, most legal scholars say. In the past, lawmakers have found a way around the clause, with Congress changing the salary of the office in question back to what it originally was. It happened when Ohio Sen. William Saxbe was named President Nixon’s attorney general in 1974 and again when Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen became President Clinton’s Treasury secretary in 1993. — misanthropicus citing CNN

As I understand it, based on comments here, Saxbe was by-passed by the post having a reduction in compensation. Therefore it was not under the prohibition of Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution of the United States.

I’m not familiar enough with the Bentson case. What were the circumstances? But then again….

….what could we expect of the Clinton administration? Seriously, the character committed outright perjury…and walked. And that’s just ONE item of his laundry-list of gross malfeasance.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every people get the governance they deserve.]

Dec 4, 2008 - 1:21 pm 128. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Heh…..

Not so fast, most legal scholars say. — CNN article cited by misanthropicus

…I like that….“most legal scholars”.

Aren’t they [these 'scholars'] supposed to be ‘progressives’?

Dec 4, 2008 - 1:34 pm 129. misanthropicus:

Re: #127/128 Chuck Pelto: [...] not so fast [...] aren’t those scholars supposed to be progressive. [...]

Correct; also, as the CNN text shows, both HC and Obama were perfectly aware about the corners they were/are willing to cut in this matter.

Re: “Every people get the governance they deserve.”
CNN has anticipated this: “[...] Whatever the activists, scholars or pundits say, the public has apparently made up its mind. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 1-2 indicated that 71 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s nomination of Clinton as his secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans split evenly on the pick. [...]

For more about this, check the Ziegler movie/Zobgy poll.
Regards -

Dec 4, 2008 - 2:41 pm 130. Chuck Pelto:

TO: misanthropicus
RE: The Strict-Interpretation Arg Against….

….Clinton being appointed, despite a possible reduction in the pay for the SecState would be that despite the Obama administration lowering the pay, the pay HAD been raised during Clinton’s tenure in the US Senate. So the effort to evade the Constitution would be blatantly obvious….

….except to those who don’t care for the Law. Nor the Constitution…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. -- James Madison]

Dec 4, 2008 - 2:52 pm 131. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. If it becomes ‘illegitmate’……

Dec 4, 2008 - 2:53 pm 132. Cybergeezer:

TO: Inspired Republican/Business Student:

Nice to see new blood. As you read this vitriol, don’t forget your common sense.
You can see this is a medium for instant messaging for folks not familiar with the technology. I would be embarrassed to use these forums to argue with an individual poster.
Factual mistakes can be countered. And disproved.
Start your own blog and publish.
Welcome aboard!

Dec 4, 2008 - 4:19 pm 133. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cybergeezer
RE: True

I would be embarrassed to use these forums to argue with an individual poster. Factual mistakes can be countered. And disproved. — Cybergeezer

So…

….why don’t you bring your facts forth? Instead of carping from the wings….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. -- Teddy Roosevelt]

P.S. Wasn’t he a Democrat? And one of the few good ones of the previous century, as I recall…..

Dec 4, 2008 - 6:18 pm 134. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. If he were alive today….

….he’d be a Republican.

Dec 4, 2008 - 6:19 pm 135. Pat J:

To: Chuck Pelto
Re: Teddy Roosevelt

I hate to break it you Chucko but Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican.

Regards
Pat J.

P.S. Anyone who refers to his significant other as a distaff often sleeps on the couch.

Dec 4, 2008 - 8:28 pm 136. cedarford:

Chuck Pelto:
Wasn’t he a Democrat? And one of the few good ones of the previous century, as I recall…..

P.P.S. If he (TDR) were alive today….

….he’d be a Republican

That’s so reassuring you think so, Chuckles, considering he was a Republican President, then Independent (Bull Moose Party)

Dec 4, 2008 - 9:03 pm 137. Jesus St. Jesus:

I love the way foaming at the mouth right wingnut Republican extremists fill the electronic world with whatever rabid spoon-fed BS of the day they are tossed by their “leaders”…. again: THIS is news?

When it all blows over, I’m sure the discussion of the moment will center on the fact that Obama wear’s a shoe size that no other president has ever had, therefore he is unfit for office… for at least the four hours you spew it til something “new” comes up.

This is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo interesting…

Dec 4, 2008 - 10:05 pm 138. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Cedarford
RE: Teddy Roosevelt

That’s so reassuring you think so, Chuckles, considering he was a Republican President, then Independent (Bull Moose Party) — Cedarford

Thanks for the correction. Some Dimocrat said he was. I took them at their word……never again….

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Dec 5, 2008 - 12:30 am 139. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: [OT] Pat J & the Distaff

P.S. Anyone who refers to his significant other as a distaff often sleeps on the couch. — Pat J

Damned if we do. Damned if we don’t. These ‘progressives’ whine about any which way one refers to their ’significant other’. That is unless one refers to their loved one as THEY dictate it. The use of the term ’significant other’ is nothing more than NuSpeak, designed to denigrate the status of ‘husband’ and/or ‘wife’, and subsequently society and God.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Who knew Pat J was an Orwellian nightmare come true….

Dec 5, 2008 - 12:35 am 140. Chuck Pelto:

TO: JSJ
RE: [OT] vivo…

I love the way foaming at the mouth right wingnut Republican extremists fill the electronic world with whatever rabid spoon-fed BS of the day… — JSJ

…is waiting for you outside. Why don’t you two go out in the traffic and play.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ll see if I can get Pat J to go out and supervise…..

Dec 5, 2008 - 12:40 am 141. Jesus St. Jesus:

TO: CP
RE: [OT] vivo

“…is waiting for you outside. Why don’t you two go out in the traffic and play.”

Ironic, isn’t it? At least you don’t try to deny the truth…

Hugs, upChuck

Dec 5, 2008 - 5:21 am 142. Cybergeezer:

To: Chuck Pelto;
I primarily use the comments sections for entertainment, as I do the articles themselves. I don’t take them for absolute truths.
We are engaged in criticism;
“critic”
noun
1. a literary critic reviewer, commentator, evaluator, analyst, judge, pundit.
2. critics of the government detractor, attacker, fault-finder, backseat driver, gadfly.
I could go on and on, & quote from my anthology of poetry, Shakespeare, bible and koran, but they are all in storage. I do keep my dictionary and thesaurus handy.
I try to do my own thinking. As long as you keep living, you can continue learning. It’s a little more difficult with today’s electronic tomes of information, you have to sort through more to arrive at the truth. But this is Free Enterprise at its best. I’m having fun; Are you?

Dec 5, 2008 - 7:29 am 143. ew:

The leftist illuminati isn’t just breaking rules with this, if you believe there is any merit to Obama’s birth certificate controversy

Dec 5, 2008 - 11:41 am 144. Jesus St. Jesus:

Dear “eeeeeeeeew”,

“…if you believe there is any merit to Obama’s birth certificate controversy” pretty much validates my previous statement:

I love the way foaming at the mouth right wingnut Republican extremists fill the electronic world with whatever rabid spoon-fed BS of the day they are tossed by their “leaders”… again: THIS is news?

Dec 5, 2008 - 5:01 pm 145. Pat J:

My point Chuck was I find the use of the word distaff to describe your wife or as demeaning. But that’s just my opinion. It might also be a term of endearment between you two of a private little joke. Nothing wrong with that.

I do wonder though how she puts up with these insipid little memos of yours.

Dec 12, 2008 - 9:53 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: