Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

mysteryman wrote:

Please show me where in the constitution it says that the President must "seek the advice of senators from both parties before making a nomination".

The Constitution gives the President,and ONLY the President,the authority to nominate judges for the Supreme Court.
Congress has no say in the matter,all they do is vote on the nominee.

THis one is easy Mystery.. you might try reading the constitution some time..

Quote:

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Looks like the Constitution says Senate gets "advice and consent" and not just a "vote".

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Please show me where in the constitution it says that the President must "seek the advice of senators from both parties before making a nomination".

The Constitution gives the President,and ONLY the President,the authority to nominate judges for the Supreme Court.
Congress has no say in the matter,all they do is vote on the nominee.

THis one is easy Mystery.. you might try reading the constitution some time..

Quote:
Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Looks like the Constitution says Senate gets "advice and consent" and not just a "vote".

I repeat,show me where it says the President MUST consult with the Senate.
The constitution says that the Senate has "advice and consent",but there is nothing that says the President MUST,and I stress MUST,get their advice.
Tell me,did Clinton listen to the repub senators when he appointed SC justices?
Did he even ask for their opinion?
If you say no to either question,then you are admitting that he violated the constitution if he MUST get Senate advice first.
So tell me,did he violate the constitution?

0 Replies

errrr, fellas, could you at least pretend to find a Dean tie-in?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Every thread in this forum goes off topic at some point.

Some veer back on--some never do.

It's always odd to me when someone complains about it. But, certainly you're free to...

Thanks for the permission slip.

I will continue to request that this thread stays on track. Until they lock it down.

When I start a thread, I prefer to keep things somewhat on theme. Consider it an over-active hostessing gene or something.

0 Replies

<smirk>

Here's a feather in Dean's cap. The Union is bolting the Democrat party.
Funny thing--they are ONE demographic we don't want.

LMAO!!!!

AFLCIO ADIOS.

Weeeee-hah!!!!!

0 Replies

That's "can't just", not "just can't"...

0 Replies

That's "The Dems Can No Longer Count on Our huge block vote, like women, and Hispanics, and increasingly blacks..."

<shakes head, laughing>

The Party's Over.....

0 Replies

Hey timber, we've got a salivater over here...

0 Replies

A laugh-er!!!

And, I yodel.

Weeee-hah!!!!

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Hey timber, we've got a salivater over here...

<guffaw> (thats bigger than a chuckle)

I s'pose there are folks trying to follow along who have no idea what all that was about ... Laughing

0 Replies

:-D

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

That's "The Dems Can No Longer Count on Our huge block vote, like women, and Hispanics, and increasingly blacks..."

Didnt we already have this discussion? Ad nauseam? Our finding was that the Democrats can pretty much still count on the black vote as much as ever ... what, having gotten practically the same share of black vote in 2004 as in 2000, which is a larger share than in previous elections?

I think at the end of that particular discussion, Lash ended saying that when she asserts the Republicans are "making progress" with blacks she is not talking about the numbers - not talking about the block of votes - but about quality improvement and such. Yet here it is again, that assertion that the Dems can "increasingly" no longer count on the black vote. Any kind of substantiation for that, or is it just still wishful thinking / predictive speculation at this point in time?

0 Replies

I hope some of you folks have been keeping abreast of Barak Obama's speeches. There is more than a little Abe Lincoln in the fellow. If the US manages to keep a fairly even keel over the next while, he may well shift the dyanmics of the US electorate in substantial ways.

0 Replies

Hmmmmm. I have to agree with Peggy Noonan in her lamenting that politicians are just too full of themselves. <What a novel idea> Smile

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

"...few weeks ago it was the senators who announced the judicial compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise and nothing wrong with announcements, but the senators who spoke referred to themselves with such flights of vanity and conceit--we're so brave, so farsighted, so high-minded--that it was embarrassing. They patted themselves on the back so hard they looked like a bevy of big breasted pigeons in a mass wing-flap. Little grey feathers and bits of corn came through my TV screen, and I had to sweep up when they were done.

This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."

Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.

Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.

You see the similarities.

There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama's résumé, but it is a log-cabin-free zone. So far it also is a greatness-free zone. If he keeps talking about himself like this it always will be."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006884

0 Replies

Peggy Noonan is, of course, widely read across all demographics, particularly African American. She's absolutely the darling of the folks a few blocks north of me in Harlem. Likely, it's her facility with guitar and four-bar blues.

0 Replies

Hmmm... sounds like the Right is already running scared of Obama even now ... awfully early to start the character assassination thing, must mean something..

0 Replies

I mean, I wonder if, should I tell someone that I read, say, the Bible, and that I liked it, also because it "reminded me of my own struggles" - if saying that would make me eligible for ridicule and allegations of egomania too, for people digging into my own life story to pick the most unfavorable comparison ... or is it only all too popular politicians of the other side that get that treatment?

0 Replies

Where's the ridicule, though? Obama compares his 'struggles' with those of Abe and Ms. Noonan points out the discrepancies.

Character assassination? She points out that ...

"There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama's résumé, but it is a log-cabin-free zone. So far it also is a greatness-free zone. If he keeps talking about himself like this it always will be."

I agree.

0 Replies

Quote:

You see the similarities.

You honestly didn't see any ridicule in that column there, JW?

0 Replies

nimh

This is the way of it. Obama presents a real threat in terms of mobilizing the African American community to organize and arrive at the polling booths. But his appeal is potentially far broader than than single demographic, differing from other African Americans who have preceded him on the political stage here. He has a very real charisma and dignity, he's an active Christian, and he's got a lovely wife and just the cutest kids. He's very bright, well read, and certainly one of the best orators about presently.

If one considers the possibility in 2008 of Clinton getting the nomination with Obama as running mate...that will not be a prospect the RNC will find very pleasing...two huge demographics, women and African Americans are likely to be charmed a great deal, and the moderate Christians as well.

You are quite right to posit pre-emptive derogation and typical smear stuff from folks like Noonan. All of that is to be expected.

0 Replies

Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know