Home | Community | Message Board


Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,720
Loc: Lost In Space
Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems.
    #1813238 - 08/14/03 01:13 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)



Democrats ?Reinterpreting the Constitution? on Nominations
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
August 13, 2003

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Senate Democrats have stressed that President Bush's refusal to acknowledge their "constitutional role" in the nominations process is part of the reason most of the senators in their party are filibustering three of his judicial nominees. But legal experts said Tuesday the Democrats are "reinterpreting the Constitution" when they seek to participate in nominations.

Senate Democrats have been vocal about their desire to consult with President Bush before he makes any judicial nomination, but especially should any vacancy occur on the Supreme Court.

"On behalf of the entire Senate Democratic Caucus," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) wrote Bush in a June 17 letter, "I want to emphasize that we remain hopeful that we would have meaningful, bipartisan consultation in advance of any Supreme Court nomination." [Emphasis added.]

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who held the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee before voters gave control of the Senate back to Republicans in the 2002 elections, wrote the president twice, first on May 14 and then on June 11, to urge "meaningful consultation with Members of the Senate...before deciding on nominees." [Emphasis added.]

At the National Press Club on June 26, Leahy hinted at a constitutional requirement that senators be involved in the nomination process.

"Along with Senator Daschle and other Senate Democrats, I have asked the president to consult with leaders in the Senate on both sides of the aisle in advance of any Supreme Court nomination," Leahy said, noting that he wanted to avoid any potential controversy that an "extreme nominee to the Supreme Court" might cause. "That is why I have suggested that the president follow what the Constitution says to do." [Emphasis added.]

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been the most outspoken advocate of the president consulting with senators prior to selecting judicial nominees and stating a constitutional basis for such participation.

"I would welcome the opportunity to evaluate any candidates you are considering and provide input before any nomination is made," Schumer wrote President Bush on June 18, "consistent with the Constitution's mandate that the Senate advise the President on judicial nominations." [Emphasis added.]

In the same letter, Schumer complained that the often short time span between the announcement of a Supreme Court vacancy and the announcement of a president''s nominee to fill that position "leaves little time for Senators to fulfill their constitutional duties to advise the President on whom to nominate." [Emphasis added.]

Schumer included this declaration to justify his demands. "The Constitution dictates that federal judges be nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate."

There is, according to several legal scholars who spoke with CNSNews.com Tuesday, only one problem with Schumer''s declaration.

"It''s absolutely incorrect, and it''s unprecedented," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. "He is reinterpreting the Constitution."

Todd Young, policy director for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, called the prospect of senators from the minority party seeking, in essence, veto power over a president''s nominees an "abject misinterpretation" of the Constitution.

"It''s absolute hogwash in terms of the manner in which the judges are nominated and then approved for service," he said.

Marion Edwyn Harrison, president of and counsel for the Free Congress Foundation and a former member of the American Bar Association''s board of governors, agreed.

"I do not think [Schumer''s] is the correct interpretation," he said. "There are two different acts in the process. One is the act of nominating, the other is the act of appointing...the advice and consent goes to the appointment, not the nomination."

Text of Constitution conflicts with Schumer''s "advice and consent'' claim

Harrison referred to the text of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which says: \ldblquote...he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint," government officials, including "Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

"The phrase "advice and consent'' is a bit archaic," he added. "Nowadays, we would say "consent,'' or "approve,'' or "ratify.'' We wouldn''t use "advice'' in the sense that it is used there."

To support his point, Harrison noted the placement of the nouns and verbs in the portion of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, that refers to treaties compared to the "advice and consent" clause.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties..." Harrison recalled versus, \ldblquote...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint..."

Harrison noted that the only verb in the treaty clause, "make," is obviously attached to both nouns, "He," the president, and "Senate." In the reference to nominations, however, only the pronoun "he," referring to the president, comes before the verb "nominate." The action taken together with the Senate, identified by the verb "appoint," comes after the nomination.

The "clear and unmistakable intent" of the founding fathers, Harrison added, was that the Senate''s role would be to give or withhold their "advice and consent," after the president had nominated someone, by voting for or against their confirmation.

Sekulow agreed.

"The nomination is not with advice and consent," Sekulow explained, adding that the "advice and consent" clause merely gives the Senate permission to hold committee hearings on those the president has already nominated but, more importantly, requires that the full Senate vote on each of the president''s nominees.

"They are not co-equal when it comes to the nomination process. The president nominates, the Senate advises and consents through voting "yes'' or "no,\rquote" he insisted. "That''s how they exercise their right to advice and consent, through an up-or-down vote, something they''re not allowing here."

Democrats "behaving extra-constitutionally...perhaps even unconstitutionally''

Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, said there is little motivation for the president to seek Senate approval before naming a nominee and no legal requirement that he do so.

"The more important of those two words, "advice'' and "consent,'' clearly is "consent'' because the way the Senate exercises its power, if it objects to a nomination, is simply by failing to consent," he said.

Regarding the Democrats'' filibusters of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominees Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit, Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit and William H. "Bill" Pryor to the 11th Circuit "raise interesting questions about the separation of powers.

"My sense is that they are behaving extra-constitutionally and, perhaps, even unconstitutionally. The Constitution clearly contemplates an up-or-down majority vote with respect to appointments of this kind," Pilon said.

"What we''ve got here is an attempt, through the filibuster, to impose a supermajority requirement when, plainly, the Constitution contemplates a mere majority requirement," he added.

Both Pilon and Harrison agreed that a court would be unlikely to rule on such a case, if it were brought before it, citing the "political question doctrine" under which courts have traditionally avoided attempts to make them take sides in "purely political" disputes concerning the operations of the legislative or executive branches of government.


Fookin whiners.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFileSoup
member
Registered: 08/09/03
Posts: 142
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1813730 - 08/14/03 03:34 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Democrats are mad they no longer have a majority anywhere and are desperate to strike back. Many Democrats have gone on record having said they would never support a candidate who is pro-life, and that no pro-lifer should be on the supreme court. Democrats think that because someone disagrees with them on a issue that means they are not a potential candidate for the supreme court. The Democrats try to destroy everyone of Bush's potential candidates by calling them a racist. It's ridiculous.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,720
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: FileSoup]
    #1813735 - 08/14/03 03:35 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Well said!


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1814105 - 08/14/03 05:24 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

spoken like a true american. :smirk:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: FileSoup]
    #1814608 - 08/14/03 07:56 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

FileSoup said:
Democrats are mad they no longer have a majority anywhere and are desperate to strike back.  Many Democrats have gone on record having said they would never support a candidate who is pro-life, and that no pro-lifer should be on the supreme court.  Democrats think that because someone disagrees with them on a issue that means they are not a potential candidate for the supreme court.  The Democrats try to destroy everyone of Bush's potential candidates by calling them a racist.  It's ridiculous. 



Define "many."  You act as if the entire Democratic party has decided the same thing.  Of course, as we all know, every Democrat is exactly alike. :shake:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining De [Re: FileSoup]
    #1815229 - 08/14/03 11:02 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

democrat shmemocrat, this is a simple temporary shift in power and any political party would react the same way


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleshroomophile
ShroomitusFidelis
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 762
Loc: USA
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1824083 - 08/17/03 10:05 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

I dont hate republicans as much as dems ,but god ,they are both fucked up.They probally had good intentions 150-200 years ago.Some priest fucked them in the butts and look at them now.


--------------------
Once the mighty oak,was a nut who held his ground.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1824923 - 08/18/03 03:07 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

they've been working on OVERwriting the constitution for quite some time now.


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1825135 - 08/18/03 05:11 AM (13 years, 3 months ago)

Democrats bad, Republicans good. I don't like whining unless it's coming out of my own mouth.

:nut:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Let's re-write the constitution to suit these whining Dems. [Re: ]
    #1825662 - 08/18/03 12:27 PM (13 years, 3 months ago)

^^^well said.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Constitution Is Enlightenment Enough spud 292 0 10/11/05 05:20 PM
by spud
* John Roberts, Bush's Justice nomination
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
DNKYD 3,825 98 07/23/05 01:40 PM
by Phred
* Bush nominates Roberts as chief justice knumb 804 13 09/06/05 02:25 AM
by Redstorm
* Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 2,293 24 08/20/08 05:58 AM
by fireworks_god
* President Bush nominates Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court. psilomonkey 524 3 10/31/05 10:35 AM
by lonestar2004
* Who will the Dems nominate for Prez??? Huxley 606 18 05/05/03 08:31 PM
by Strumpling
* Reid predicts nomination will be decided before convention lonestar2004 592 8 03/27/08 05:40 PM
by lonestar2004
* Establishment Media Finally Admits Ron Paul Is Top Tier Candidate; Could Win Nomination
( 1 2 3 4 all )
a_guy_named_ai 3,570 61 10/26/07 03:03 PM
by mindspin

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
708 topic views. 4 members, 1 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.075 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.