Whether Hillary or some other yahoo is SecState matters not to me (seeing as how we are gonna get a terrible SecState either way) but the fact that Obama, a former lecturer on Constitutional Law, seems willing to ignore the Constitution is troubling, but not surprising in the least.
The section he will ignore wholesale in the appointment of Hillary is the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):
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: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
In a nutshell this means Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time that person held office in Congress. The pay for the Secretary of State has gone up in the last year that which would prevent Hillary from getting appointed.
But Taft, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all ignored the Constitution. They did it by lowering the pay after the fact. One of the Democrats favorite former KKK member, Robert Byrd, didn’t like this tactic in 1973 and said this:
we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle
But now that its the Democrats in power, and wanting Hillary in the SecState spot it’s all good.
Professor Volokh quoted Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen, author of Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional?, in his post on the subject:
A “fix” can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls.
Unless one views the Constitution’s rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient; or as not really stating rules at all (but “standards” or “principles” to be viewed at more-convenient levels of generality); or as not applicable where a lawsuit might not be brought; or as not applicable to Democratic administrations, then the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text forbids the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
I wouldn’t bet on this actually preventing the appointment, however. It didn’t stop Lloyd Bentsen from becoming Secretary of State. But it does make an interesting first test of how serious Barack Obama will be about taking the Constitution’s actual words seriously. We know he thinks the Constitution should be viewed as authorizing judicial redistribution of wealth. But we don’t know what he thinks about provisions of the Constitution that do not need to be invented, but are actually there in the document.
You think the Democrats will stand firm against this tactic, as they did in 1973?
I highly doubt it seeing how much hypocrisy we have seen come from the left side of the aisle.
See author page
Going to be a whole lot of ignoring the Constitution going on. We are going to have to step it up and defend with lawsuits.
New video to Obama about his transparency.
Since the Communistwealth of Va will have two lame brain democrat senators it will be a waste of air time to contact them about upholding the constitution. So there can be no help for this believer in the constitution.
Donofrio, Berg, Manning and many other people say that Obama is an illegal alien who cannot be POTUS. In the Constitution it is said that you have to be a “born citizen” and that you are not aloud to have a dual citizenship to become POTUS. Since Obama is a constitutional lawyer, he knew it and by-passed the Constitution by sealing all his documents to the public eyes. This is why his case is in the Supreme Court right now. Will the SCOTUS ignore it or will they act on it? THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION?
For Hillary, I knew this a long time ago and I even posted it here on this site (Article I, Section 6, clause 2). And what about Bill Clinton foundation who will be a conflict of interest? But Obama do not respect the Constitution, never did, never will. He even wants to change it. He and his wife are not proud of the USA; Michelle said it and Barrack proved it. This is why they want to change it. That change will be to destroy America as you know it. This bum (not President-elect… he is not elect yet, he is just an ordinary “citizen” for now), this bum has to be stopped. I hope the SCOTUS hasn’t been yet corrupted by Obama and his crooks. God help you if they are. Move out of USA while you still can.
Obama has done and said whatever benefits himself, all others be damned. No one has seriously challenged these actions and words and, as a result, he has gotten away with them. It’s not that he doesn’t know any different; he his a very intelligent person. He simply doesn’t care. He is a narcissist. We’ve seen him loose a bit of his coolness when confronted, but that’s about it. Never has someone who has acomplished so little, been so dishonest, been so disrespectful, and been marketed with astonishing smoke and mirrors (the Office of the President-Elect?), risen to take on the highest office in our land as Obama has done. It is remarkable, but not in a positive light. Until there is a significant, substantial uprising of sorts that demands a return to our core values, then we should expect much more of the same.
Funny thing how the Libs screech and wail over the slightest perceived constitutional affronts to language that doesn’t actually exist in the constitution, i.e. the right to privacy, but when there are actual words specifically speaking to an exactly applicable topic, well now there is room for interpretation.
From the Wash Post story: “Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”
“
I wonder if Byrd will come out against Hillary’s nomination on this basis? Or is he too senile to remember what he said 35 years ago?
What constitution? We don’t need no stinking constitution, we are the ones we have been waiting for.
Dude! He’s ignoring the Constitutional prohibition about being a “Natural-born US Citizen”, do you really think he gives a crap about this?
Ha!
Dec 5-SC meets about Obama-
this is rich, guess rules should only apply to the republicans. i will laugh my ass off when his house of cards falls apart.
Wonder Woman, this is a good video that you have linked int comment # 2. I have a comment stuck in spam since a while, I will try to repost it here:
Donofrio, Berg, Manning and many other people say that Obama is an illegal alien who cannot be POTUS. In the Constitution it is said that you have to be a “born citizen” and that you are not aloud to have a dual citizenship to become POTUS. Since Obama is a constitutional lawyer, he knew it and by-passed the Constitution by sealing all his documents to the public eyes. This is why his case is in the Supreme Court right now. Will the SCOTUS ignore it or will they act on it? That is THE BIG QUESTION?
For Hillary, I knew this a long time ago and I even posted it here on this site (Article I, Section 6, clause 2). And what about Bill Clinton foundation who will be a conflict of interest? But Obama do not respect the Constitution, never did, never will. He even wants to change it. He and his wife are not proud of the USA; Michelle said it and Barrack proved it. This is why they want to change it. That change will be to destroy America as you know it. This bum (not President-elect… he is not elect yet, he is just an ordinary “citizen” for now), this bum has to be stopped. I hope the SCOTUS hasn’t been yet corrupted by Obama and his crooks. God help you if they are. Move out of USA while you still can.
@Craig: once again craig you have a better grasp of how our government works than your average american. you are a great guy and i love reading your comments and find what you say interesting. i had no idea that clinton couldn’t be sec of state, but nothing the dems do anymore is shocking. i hope they find obama can’t be pres, but what then? that would be a huge mess.
I saw the prohibition on another site a couple weeks ago–but I knew nothing would be said or done about it.
Rules are for Republicans, not dems.
Gee, this is even worse than starting a war for no good reason in which thousands of US soldiers are killed and $600+ billion of US taxpayer dollars are wasted! Wow, is Barak off to a bad start or what? Where’s the outrage!?!?
Thanks Luva, I also appreciate your comments and support. I am a political and economical junky. I’m interested in worldwide politic and economy. But I have a special interest for the USA since you are my neighbours. What ever affects the States, affects Canada. It is very comfortable living next to the U.S. You are our first commercial partner, a friend and an ally. We can always count on you in time of troubles. But with Obama as a POTUS, we won’t feel so safe here. We don’t really know on which side he is. If your country becomes a Communist or Islamist country… we will be just as toasted as you will be. Sure hope the SCOTUS has not lost their integrity and that they will do their job.
Of course a mental patient like you would think fighting terrorists, protecting Americans, and liberating people from a tyrant is horrible. As for wasting “taxpayer” dollars, just more hypocrisy on your part. Take your anti-psych meds and let the orderlies place your “jacket” back on.
BTW, my post is aimed at Dr. Dumbass, not Craig.
Hey Hard Right, there weren’t any terrorists in Iraq until W got rid of Sadam. Now the country’s full of them. If you think I’m wrong then you’re deluded by right wing propaganda. Nobody is saying Sadam wasn’t a horrible guy, but the world’s full of horrible heads of state. Now Iraq’s full of terrorists instead. Think that’s better? I don’t! And yes, the war is paid for by taxpayer dollars. Who did you think pays for it? If W was smart or even competent he would have fought and won the war in Afghanistan where the *real* terrorists were. If you think Iraq was a thread to the US before the fall of Sadam then you’re the one who needs anti-psych meds.
“by sealing all his documents to the public eyes.”
You were asleep, no doubt, when Hawaii’s registrar of vital statistics vouched for it and ISSUED A PUBLIC STATEMENT. But of course every single person who vouches for it is an Obama supporter. Including the current Supreme Court. (I’ll let you think about that one before I pick it up again below). Ya know what, son? Even if you got the document in your own hands and became convinced, the next thing that would happen is that your peers and everyone on this site would then say you’re in the can for Obama. See a pattern?
I find it troubling that your ilk don’t know the birth certificate was examined, and has even been put online. Now you know. And of course now you’ll claim Photoshopping. Why can’t you guys read a law that has been passed by our government? Or pass a civics test? Why haven’t you ever read a Supreme Court decision? How come you’ve never even seen an Executive Order, and had no idea that they are published in the Federal Register? Why don’t you know what the Federal Register even is? Because you’re not interested in actual information. You stay in your fact-free world of literal nonsense, thinking that the intelligentsia is “elitist” because YOU don’t know basic information literacy. To you, you have different “opinions” To us, we know opinions are interpretations of fact, and without facts… all you have are feelings. No better than soft-headed Liberals (I guess by now you’ve figured out I’m a Regan Republican; might as well give it away).
“I hope the SCOTUS hasn’t been yet corrupted by Obama and his crooks.”
Every justice on the court may make a determination to take this case (others cannot bring this for lack of standing; the Electors can, and the SCOTUS can). If three justices agree, the case will be heard. I can guarantee you that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will decline to hear this matter.
The rest of us in the party have been WAY too tolerant of people like you co-opting our party’s values. We stopped short of lecturing you, because you wouldn’t hear. Now we realize it’s far too late, and you’re FAR too gone. RINOs spouting feelings rather than opinions are the very reason John McCain lost in 2000 (two THOUSAND) against an imbecile, and the reason he lost again eight years later after that inexperienced RINO lost his way and ruined our party’s future.
Dr. ThinksButtIsTooBig: Just what does your comment have to do with the issue at hand?
Yep…. Rules are for Republicans… Dems can fudge it and everyone cheers.
And they say Bush shredded the Constitution?
We can’t and shouldn’t have invaded Iraq an enemy, but now Pakistan an ally, why thats different. There’s nothing new under the sun, the Dems are still 180Deg. out of balance.
I will admit that Pakistan is not the best of allies, but than neither was Russia in WWII. The enemy of your enemy is your friend no matter how you slice it.
RogerBeddecker, before you come blasting in here with a ‘tude, accusing those on this site of not reading SCOTUS opinions and/or law suits, you may want to do some digging in the archives. Most of our authored posts are replete with links to original briefs, opinions, analyses for commenters to read for themselves.
I personally have no idea how any of the multiple lawsuits demanding more details on Obama’s birth will turn out – including the most recent one by Alan Keyes using standing as another candidate. But no one… most especially President-elect Obama… should be immune from the court system, or complete vetting before assuming the power of the Oval Office. If SCOTUS declines Berg, others may make their way to the top of the judicial food chain… as it is supposed to be. I believe there was something like 11 lawsuits addressing Obama’s eligibility, last I read.
I’d like to add that if you’re relying on your reasoning INRE the birth certificate with your comment, “…the birth certificate was examined, and has even been put online. Now you know. And of course now you’ll claim Photoshopping.” then you’ve already put a cyber foot in your mouth. You might want to start reading some of the legal briefs yourself. Then you’ll know the argument why the online provided copy is not a legal certificate via Hawaiian law. You might even learn that the birth certificate is not the only aspect in the ineligibility argument, but that immigration laws in effect at that time may also come into play.
And, BTW, many of we FA authors are hard core Reagan GOPers.
Ms. thinksshethinksbetterthanus… nice replay of the tired progressive/socialist/Bush hating mantras there, girl. News bulletin…
1: terrorists who were affiliated with AQ were not only in Iraq prior to OIF, but Saddam used them as an unofficial state weapon
2: the enemy is not *just* AQ
3: Iraq is *not* full of terrorists
4: Bush did in Afghanistan what all you idiots wanted him to do… he turned over complete control for the security of the country to NATO command in the summer of 2006. But of course you all rejoiced that it became an “international mission”, and not “unilateral”. Coincidently the violence started increasing in the months after that. And today you bozos say he “took his eye off the ball” and blame Bush for NATO’s command performance. duh wuh
5: Since by all the above comments you made, you have proven yourself information deficient, and therefore incapable of recognizing exactly what the threat was that Saddam posed. That will be why no one will be recommending you for any intel or state position in government any time soon.
My suggestion is that you get a hold of the many reports, analyses and books – or use our archives to look up the links via our authored posts – on the Harmony and ISG documents that were confiscated after Saddam was removed from power. Otherwise you will just further embarrass yourself… especially with your chosen moniker.
this wouldn’t be an impeachable offensse, would it?
Get ’em, Mata!
RogerBeddecker,
What are you talking about? I blast Rinos all the time. Rinos are not considered Republicans in my mind. I see them as leftists.
I am also a Reagan fan and I only give credit to Milton Friedman views on economy. I hate Keynesian economics.
If I could have vote for the past election, I would have vote for the McCain/Palin ticket because Sarah thinks like Reagan and Friedman.
And for Obama, you got it all wrong. I would suggest you go and read:
Natural Born Citizen: Or how to beat a subject to death with a stick, by: Judah Benjamin.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/natural-born-citizens-or-how-to-beat-a-subject-to-death-with-a-stick/
Curt, interesting post. On the Benson appointment, it was George HW Bush who approved the “Saxbe fix” lowering the pay making way for Benson to become Bill Clinton’s Tres. Sec. Do you think George W Bush will approve a “Saxbe fix” for Hillary Clinton?
RogerBeddecker;
Rather than rehash the birth certificate issue once again… Here’s an analysis from someone who would appear to agree with you:
I am not saying BHO II isn’t a US citizen, I’m not saying he has lost his US citizenship, I am not saying he is naturalized and I am most definitely not saying he was born in Mombasa, Protectorate of Zanzibar, British East Africa.
Doc [said];
Perhaps in your pursuit of you doctorate, you were too busy to notice and missed the U.N. reports from 1991-2002. America’s war was not started by G.W.Bush following 9-11. It was a continuation of Desert Storm/Desert Shield. That war did not end in 1991. We were in a state of a conditional ceasefire status where Iraq was required to meet certain agreed to criteria, which they consistently failed to meet. During the ceasefire, Iraqi forces continued firing upon our aircraft which were enforcing the no fly zone. I happen to know because during parts of that period I was working the flightline maintaining those aircraft. So your BS does not wash with this vet.
And I also happen to know that WMDs were indeed found and destroyed by our troops. That Dems in Congress chose to ignore the facts and what we DID find WAS reported to them via intelligence briefs, which they received on a daily basis, and decided to focused on a few items from the list that were not found, mobile, and were presumed moved across the Syrian border does not support the claim, “No WMDs ever existed”. Perhaps you also missed the news reports about the millions of his own people, consisting of Iraqi Kurds in the northern territories, were killed as test subjects for his chemical & biological agents and buried in mass graves. Our troops uncovered those mass graves and forensic results show what killed them.
And you’re moaning about the creative accounting of an inflated “$600B price-tag” for our military making this world safer over the last 7 years (BTW, The total you quote includes the all expenditures in the war on terror to include Afghanistan and other military & intelligence actions), when bailout plans over the last 3 months are gouging taxpayers $1.8 Trillion and counting? All because your Dems in Congress have been setting this economy up for a fall since the Carter administration, with CRA, ignored warnings and misleading the public on Freddy Mac & Fanny Mae, saddled us with uncontrolled big government spending, and pork? Yet that takes us even more off-topic.
Not only WERE there terrorists in Iraq during Saddam’s reign, he was actively engaged with, supplying them, paying them (or their survivors in some cases), and assigning them taskings world-wide. I would suggest you read the full text of Pentagon IDA Paper P-4151, Of which this link provides merely an overview:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf
I know that it’s standard policy of Dem fly-byers to try to maneuver FA threads off-topic when it’s a subject THEY do not want people to talk about. The topic of this thread is the continuous disregard for our Constitution, the Supreme law of our land, by the Democrats and the Obama administration. So why don’t you want to talk about THAT doc? Does it frighten you? Is that because you don’t want your man impeached or indicted before he can even take office? Or perhaps you were a Hillary supporter and are concerned that Obama has lured her to join him and the DNC in ignoring this country’s laws? Obama’s a noob hack of a lawyer compared to Hillary. She should know better. After all, she was a lawyer on the side of the prosecution in the attempt to impeach Nixon over Watergate.
Bah, looks like my comment here is in the spam filter. Could someone please fish it out? Thanks.
Dr. Dumbass, way to prove you are as mentally ill as I claimed. Really, seek some help and join the rest of us in the real world.
As we all know, the dems only care about the rules when they can be used against the Republicans. Otherwise it’ “partisan politics”, “cheap point scoring”, etc.
Hard Right,
Your comments speak volumes to what type of person you are. As I have pointed out when we have made exchanges, when you disagree with someone you make inappropriate comments and personal attacks. As you can see mataharley presented a cogent argument in response to dr’s comment. Agree or disagree with either side, but one reading their opinions can see substance in what they say, whereas you are left totally lacking.
blast, I do not care what someone like you thinks of me and I have zero tolerance for those like the dr. Also, I am up front and blunt about my views and do not pretend to be something I’m not. You on the other hand are a phony. I saw how your BDS arose on another thread when someone had the gall to rightly defend Bush against dishonest attacks. So spare me your “I’m so superior” BS.
Well, it’s true that both GOP and Democratic Administrations have applied the “Saxbe fix” in the past, so it isn’t as if this is some new issue.
A strict reading of the Emoluments Clause would place a fairly potent weapon in the hands of any outgoing President. All they would have to do is give the entire Cabinet a raise–even one dollar–by Executive Order, and the incoming President would be prohibited from nominating any sitting Senator or Congressman to a position in the new Cabinet.
The current salary of the Secretary of State has been changed twice in the last few years. The base salary was increased by Executive Order, and the SecState has also received automatic cost-of-living-adjustments implemented by Congress some years ago.
Now, I’m going to step on some very suspect ground here, but I have to ask. Do we believe that the Founders intended government officials to get pay raises via Executive Order, or that they envisioned COLAs being mandated by statute?
I’m certainly no attorney, but I would suggest that the intent of the Founders–to eliminate featherbedding and corruption in a legislative-to-executive revolving door–would be met by resetting the salary to its pre-GWB level. It’s messy, to be sure, but wasn’t that the original intent?
@blast:
Here’s the thanks Bush 41 gets when trying to reach across the aisle, na, na, na, na, na, na, so there. Example of……speaking volumns to what type of person one is?
It matters not whether Republican or Democratic, it’s wrong to bend the rules in either party. Both the President and his father have been bitten more than once in their attempts to do what they saw was for the good of the country. Too bad Clinton didn’t remember what Bush 41 did for him when 43 was transitioning into office.
Lawyers weigh in:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/01/is-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional-some-say-yes/
Wesmorgan, I suspect the Founders would be appalled at the only thing the Congress can agree upon and accomplish in their first days back after Christmas holidays… and that would be their own pay raises. But at least the Congress is charged with allocating the country’s cash… even if they give priority to their own salaries.
These actions go back to George Washington, but were usually secret, and generally used to specificy directives to agencies. But I have to wonder if EO’s have morphed out of their authority when they are addressing budget allocation (i.e. salaries). Unless, of course, the budget remains the same, and the salaries have been adjusted to use the same amount of cash.
blast, I can’t see Dubya attempting to thwart Hillary’s eligibility for Secy of State. Still beats the tar out of me why she is willingly taking a back seat of power… and throwing the future of her elected official career to boss Obama. (unless he guaranteed her at least two years in the job in writing…).
However it’s up to Obama’s admin to make the request. If they are unaware of the details of Hillary’s appointment, it’s not Bush’s job to point it out.
BTW, INRE Hard Right and “the type of person” you think he is. Hard Right and I arrived at FA around the same time earlier this year. He has not said so in so many words, but from many of his comments, I’d bet my next paycheck that he’s a veteran, as he is very munitions savvy. Considering his awareness of political events goes back quite some time, I’d guess Vietnam vet.
He, like Scrapiron, is terse and to the point. Perhaps because we get tired of repeating stuff to crap like Ms. Drthinksshethinksbetterthan us parrots. To have to deal with such poorly educated types over and over makes a body weary of typing.
But on those battles…. I’m not bad with my Colt Series 80 Mk IV, but I tend to wage better battle with language. However without those “types of people” like Scrap and Hard Right… my battle of words may not be possible. So I think we all have our specialities. If Hard Right needs my back in a debate, I’m there. But if I’m in physical battle, I’d sure appreciate his support.
MataHarley, on HR: I just find his tactics juvenile. He seems to only spew and not offer opinion outside of castigating anyone who disagrees (personal attacks). I may or may not agree with you on many things, but I do know I better bring my A game if I am going to open a conversation with you. In the end we might learn something from each other even if we don’t agree in the end. We have found agreement here as well, so there is not just disagreement to focus on. If all public dialogue has to be shaped around diminishing the opinions of others eventually we will end up in armed camps shouting slogans over the other.
My sense is if someone disagrees with Bush’s policies or point out the weaknesses in them, somehow that is seen as personally attacking Bush here on FA (same if criticisms of the Republican Party are brought forward). Believe me, I will be just as critical of Obama and the Democrats as the now take the management of the seat of power.
The other day when the post about Bush calling the troops on Thanksgiving. We ended up leaving that topic a bit, but I do think Bush was doing a good thing. I replied to a previous comment made by Scrapiron (paraphrasing) that the Democrats destroyed the economy in the past two years. I disagreed with that and voiced it and suggested the Republican/Bush policies ended what Karl Rove thought would be a permanent Republican majority. In my opinion if Republicans were listening to Independent Progressives (as in the Teddy Roosevelt mold) they might have still maintained a majority and retained the Presidency.
On the subject of W and Clinton. Until this post I did not realize there was an issue. It is interesting and of course people above my pay grade will look at it. Seeing a history of both parties using the “Saxbe fix” it does not appear to be out of the ordinary so I don’t think she will be held up. I don’t have a strong opinion either way and will watch the discussion before coming to a decision, if ever.
While I wish I was, I’m not a vet. I do however have vets of multiple generations on both sides of the familly. My plans for a military career were derailed by a physical ailment that came up after years of ROTC. I also have deep respect for the Vietnam vets and it disgusts me how they were and continue to be treated by the left.
I have been politically aware since I was 15…a few decades ago. My father is a Reagan Republican who got to guard Reagan on several ocassions and we are both sick of moonbats. Now maybe you aren’t a moonbat blast and I’m wrong about you, but I’m not wrong about fit, CRAP, or the Dr. I debate or exchange info with those who are worth doing so. Moonbats are mentally ill and there is no point in talking to them. They suffer from pathological denial of reality and nothing we say or do will change that. They are not interested in exchanging ideas or considering other viewpoints. You might as well try to have a rational discussion with the homeless guy who talks to people that aren’t there.
I also don’t care if you-blast find my posts juvenile. If the mods do, that’s something different. You also deliberately ignore the posts where I did lay out the facts and debate.
blast, I tend to think that conversations with different people in the US is just like learning another language. Some of us are especially adept at expressing our thoughts via words. Others understand what is being expressed, but cannot necessarily (or don’t have the patience to…) express their disagreement verbally.
You can differentiate those that parrot talking points from those that have “been there, done that” in their comment style (i.e. Hard Right & Scrapiron vs Ms. Dr. she thinksshethinksmorethanus.
This is why I tend to research a bit of background for those that I think make a valid point…. or those that maybe aren’t some Don Quixote of composition aren’t necessarily just know-nothings that need casting off. I’m sure you know many people that are packed with info, but just don’t necessarily know how to impart that knowledge via composition.
Both are not only necessary, but absolutely fascinating in our lives. As I said, I’d be humbled if either Scrapiron, Hard Right and others here had my back. It it from those like them that I learned to be mentally and physically (i.e. not a bad shot and weapon handler) independent. They know things I can only have nightmares about. Because someone doesn’t express themselves with a certain standard via language and composition doesn’t mean they don’t have valuable hands-on knowledge I could never duplicate via schooling or reading.
My personal opinion as a female? No man who has ultimate command of the “cell phone” when in a pinch can win my heart. The male species I find the most fascinating are those who have never had a college degree, but have a PhD in life. They may not have been the editor of the Harvard Review… but in life’s pickles, knew how to live without power and sewer lines, dig a well and refrig, construct a home, deck, clear fire breaks and surrounding land – and possess supporting survival skills like hunting for food, clothing the body, knowing the seasonal planting for the garden and instilling the basic right/wrong moral in children.
Does this require mastering the English language? Not necessarily if an asute can catch what they do on camera for training. Let me point you all to an example of a former Navy retiree… I’m so sorry this man has passed, because he truly was one extraordinary man… and if ever there was one who understand what the Constitution represented for the common man, Richard Pronneke was one.
Below is the “Alone in the Wilderness” episode that shows Dick – an adept mechanic and carpenter – building his Twin Lakes, AK wilderness digs from virtually scratch. A place where he survived for three decades without power and civiliation. It is now a national park, and Dick’s cabin in part of Sarah Palin’s Alaska national parks’ tours.
The below episode is approx an hour long… sit back when you have time. You will be awed – and humbled – by a man the Constitution was constructed to honor… a man with the skills (demonstrated by Dick Pronneke) that we have cast aside as “non-intellectual”… and thereby non-worthy of respect as a man who is living “the American dream” is it was envisioned by the Founders.
Hard Right
well, I wanted to be sure what you meant by “moonbat” so I googled the definition and had a good laugh, you might get a chuckle as well – http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moonbat
my favorite part of a the definition was “”These people wear winter clothes in the summer”.
Characterized by men in ponytails, sandals with socks” haha… for the record, my hair has never touched my collar or covered my ears since I was 17 and I wear sandals sans socks. 🙂
Anyway, I hope we can agree to disagree when the time comes and not be too personal. No doubt you have strong convictions and I don’t fault you for those and when we disagree I don’t intend to try to change your mind, but to offer my personal opinion where I feel it is warranted.
Those sandals better not be Birkenstocks…. 😉
BTW, my previous post is awaiting moderation for an edit. I was in brass knuckle mode whe I wrote it so keep that in mind.
MataHarley,
sounds like a family too… 🙂
No one can know what is in another person’s heart without knowing them, and even then it is difficult. The medium we use here today does not account for passion coming across as anger or an inarticulate phrase accidentally being misconstrued (outright name calling is pretty easy to pick up on though). My purpose is truly honorable here and comes from the heart. If I did not want honest dialogue I would just ignore those who have said things I take as insulting. I am not saying I am perfect at responding to “turning the cheek” to a personal snipe, but do try.
Hard Rightm
we better add that to the slang definition huh. No, I have never owned a pair and my feet are too big for flip-floppish sandals anyhow. I live in Texas and wear ropers when out and about… too many critters to nibble on unprotected feet here.
MataHarley wrote:
I’ve come to the conclusions that EOs have morphed into a composite beast that would make the Founders shudder. I believe we had a discussion here (some months ago) about President Bush’s EO that effectively rewrote the Presidential Records Act to give Presidential spouses AND THEIR HEIRS veto power over the release of Presidential records. That one boggled my mind, but Clinton did his share of “legislating from the Oval Office” with his EOs on ergonomic regulation, new roads on Federal land, and the like. Reagan amended the UCMJ (which is an Act of Congress) via EO.
My personal opinion is that many of the EOs issued from Carter onward come dangerously close to violating the ‘separation of powers’ created by the Constitution, but I don’t believe that any have been challenged on such grounds.
With the tool in such common use, we might as well use it in this case, since it’s been done in the past. It leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth, but many of our other governmental machinations do as well. *sigh*
Not necessarily [on the Founders’ “shutter”], wesmorgan. George Washington used EOs as well, but the scope of their effect was not made public. Today they are. So I’d hold that “shudder” as we have far more transparency today… not that we can do anything about what’s in the EO, mind you. And your hesitance on that power I share totally.
You will also have to remember that Bob Rubin… who is now holding his hand out on behalf of Citibank… was Clinton’s Treasury Secy. He had the “authority” to rewrite the compliance regulations for CRA rules… all without the approval of Congress. Teflon Bill did this expressly because he did not want to battle the new incoming GOP majority Congress by approving new rules for compliance. It has become a tool to.. in some ways… usurp Congress.
In effect, this rewriting of adminstrative rules without Congressional oversight isn’t much different than an EO in effect. There are many ways those in power manage to get what they want. And the R or D behind their name seems to make no difference when they are on a quest. They all bypass the oversight/approval channels at every given chance.
Nice knowing more about you, Hard Right. I knew you had been around for awhile since your political knowledge spanned decades comfortably… as in “being there” instead of “book learned”.
Doesn’t matter… I’d still want you to have my back. BTW… you do have munitions knowledge that’s better than the average bear. Where did you acquire that? Dad? ROTC?
If by munitions you mean firearms, I’ve been around them since as long as I can remember. My dad taught me some things, some I learned on my own, some from professional intructors, and some from guys rated as Masters and High Masters. I still have a lot to learn, though. As far as munitions that go boom in a big way, there are some manuals that can still be found online. Not that I advocate buying such things (nudge nudge, wink wink).
Hey Matta,
A bunch of Ace o Spade Morons are getting together for a therapy session, drinking binge, pool game and hobo hunt.
Would love to have you come out to meet some of your locals.
PS Some of us know our way around a motorbike and have a fair bit of military background and there is a local blogger and a history professor as well.
I think you can get my email from this site.
yea but i hear the loop hole is that she can just take a pay cut and serve for the amount that was in place before they voted for the increase. They liberal illuminati always have a loop hole.
MataHarley, it’s worth noting that the vast majority of those “bad” mortgages were issued by institutions NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA. Other than that point, I think we’re in violent agreement on the danger of EOs, regardless of the party affiliation of the issuer. *grin*
road warrior, you might want to read the earlier comments in this thread; the “roll back the pay” fix has been used by Democratic and Republican Administrations alike. It doesn’t make it right–although I would argue that, should it ever be tested in court, it does meet the intent of the Emoluments Clause–but it’s definitely a two-edged sword.
Munitions? Did someone say munitions? *grin* I’m a former 12B/12E (yeah, back before the Army changed the MOS structure), and it’s ALWAYS good to work with one’s hands in such fashion. [*chuckle*] In fact, I think I still have a few of those…um…more interesting manuals.
@wesmorgan1:
…says [i paraphrase] ‘The people responsible for the financial crisis say they aren’t responsible, so they’re not. Nyaa!”
Now there’s front page news for ya. HOLD THE PRESSES!
…AND DON’T PAY NO ATTENTION TO NO STINKIN FACTS, NEITHER!
http://www.thenextright.com/blue-collar-muse/cra-acorn-democrats-obama-and-the-housing-market-crisis
http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2008/09/26/govt-dems-caused-housing-crisis-including-obama/