It is unconstitutional for ANY senator to hold up a vote because they don't like the politics or religion of the nominee. The dems use the
constitutional right to privacy in their litmus test concerning abortion. Both sides have been hypocritical & wrong with this tactic. But since this is a thread abiout liberal hypocrites....
I don't understand why the link doesn't work, i checked it & it's posted right, I think
. If you'd like to read it, Google
jb williams litmus test
LoneStarMadam wrote:It is unconstitutional for ANY senator to hold up a vote because they don't like the politics or religion of the nominee. The dems use the
constitutional right to privacy in their litmus test concerning abortion. Both sides have been hypocritical & wrong with this tactic. But since this is a thread abiout liberal hypocrites....
I don't understand why the link doesn't work, i checked it & it's posted right, I think
. If you'd like to read it, Google
jb williams litmus test
Why is it unConstitutional? Can you show me the area of the Constitution which prohibits a Senator from not voting for someone whose politics they disagree with?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:It is unconstitutional for ANY senator to hold up a vote because they don't like the politics or religion of the nominee. The dems use the
constitutional right to privacy in their litmus test concerning abortion. Both sides have been hypocritical & wrong with this tactic. But since this is a thread abiout liberal hypocrites....
I don't understand why the link doesn't work, i checked it & it's posted right, I think
. If you'd like to read it, Google
jb williams litmus test
Why is it unConstitutional? Can you show me the area of the Constitution which prohibits a Senator from not voting for someone whose politics they disagree with?
Cycloptichorn
No, because this thread isn't about the Constitution, however, i did give a link (that doesn't work) & provided the way to find the article, that states why it's unconstitutional much better than I can.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:It is unconstitutional for ANY senator to hold up a vote because they don't like the politics or religion of the nominee. The dems use the
constitutional right to privacy in their litmus test concerning abortion. Both sides have been hypocritical & wrong with this tactic. But since this is a thread abiout liberal hypocrites....
I don't understand why the link doesn't work, i checked it & it's posted right, I think
. If you'd like to read it, Google
jb williams litmus test
Why is it unConstitutional? Can you show me the area of the Constitution which prohibits a Senator from not voting for someone whose politics they disagree with?
Cycloptichorn
No, because this thread isn't about the Constitution, however, i did give a link (that doesn't work) & provided the way to find the article, that states why it's unconstitutional much better than I can.
Actually, you can't explain why it is unConstitutional because you are not schooled in Constitutional interpretation and law. It's better if you go ahead and admit this now, rather than dragging this on for a whole 'nother page.
I read the link you provided -
http://jb-williams.com/9-13-05.htm - and it doesn't explain why it is unConstitutional either. So you are going to either have to do better than that or retract your claim that the Dems are acting in an UnConstitutional fashion.
Cycloptichorn
& you are trained in constitutional law?
Let me ask you, if senators can intrepret the constitution to their advantage, right to privacy, then why is it you think that I, or any civillian, should be even more trained?
LoneStarMadam wrote:& you are trained in constitutional law?
Let me ask you, if senators can intrepret the constitution to their advantage, right to privacy, then why is it you think that I, or any civillian, should be even more trained?
Yes, I have studied Constitutional Law and Interpretation. It is an active part of my employment as well.
Senators did not invent the 'right to privacy,' dear. They merely choose to either support the position that this right exists (such as I do) or choose to deny that it exists (such as you do, though I am not 100% positive about this).
You don't have to be more trained at all about the Constitution, if you don't like; just try and refrain from saying that things are 'unConstitutional' when you don't know that they actually are.
Cycloptichorn
Now here is something worth discussing, rather than that stupid attempt to smear others by a notional and undemonstrated guilt by association.
The entire description in the United States Constitution of the appointment process in the executive branch is contained in the second and third paragraphs of Article II, Section 2:
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.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Neither paragraph has been altered by amendment. One need not possess any special, arcane knowledge of the Constitution to understand those passages, which are mute on the subject of in what the advice and consent of the Senate shall consist. Should the Senate so choose, they can make the ballroom dancing ability of hopeful nominees the crucial determining factor in the selection process.
Cycloptichorn wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:& you are trained in constitutional law?
Let me ask you, if senators can intrepret the constitution to their advantage, right to privacy, then why is it you think that I, or any civillian, should be even more trained?
Yes, I have studied Constitutional Law and Interpretation. It is an active part of my employment as well.
Senators did not invent the 'right to privacy,' dear. They merely choose to either support the position that this right exists (such as I do) or choose to deny that it exists (such as you do, though I am not 100% positive about this).
You don't have to be more trained at all about the Constitution, if you don't like; just try and refrain from saying that things are 'unConstitutional' when you don't know that they actually are.
Cycloptichorn
Democrat senators
invented the constitutional right to privacy
I freely admit that I intrepret many things differently than many people. However, I can read & I do have a thesaurus & a dictionary. I can decipher plain English, I'm a little rusty on legal mumbo jumbo.
Being able to reason out simple english is something that I am capable of & do understand what the Constitution says & doesn't say. If politicians can say something is in that document that isn't, hey, I can call it as I see it. 1st Amendment to the BoR.
Setanta wrote:Now here is something worth discussing, rather than that stupid attempt to smear others by a notional and undemonstrated guilt by association.
The entire description in the United States Constitution of the appointment process in the executive branch is contained in the second and third paragraphs of Article II, Section 2:
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.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Neither paragraph has been altered by amendment. One need not possess any special, arcane knowledge of the Constitution to understand those passages, which are mute on the subject of in what the advice and consent of the Senate shall consist. Should the Senate so choose, they can make the ballroom dancing ability of hopeful nominees the crucial determining factor in the selection process.
You should start a thread on your knowledge, you are so vesatile & humble, I'm sure many would flock to your side to heed your words of wisdom.
One can readily see that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Amendment IV was ratified December 15, 1791, and reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The "right to privacy" is based upon this amendment, as it has been construed by the courts. The Democratic Party did not exist in 1791.
I have some errands to run but here is another good example of the moonbats hypocricy. I'm sure I will have more on my return.
remember how the dems praised & worshiped on MM & then had a tizzy about "The Road to 911"
I have no idea what vesatile is supposed to mean.
Let me tip you to something you apparently were unaware of, though:
Quote:1st Amendment to the BoR.
The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights. You could just do a web search for the United States Constitution, you know, and actually
read it.
Setanta wrote:One can readily see that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Amendment IV was ratified December 15, 1791, and reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The "right to privacy" is based upon this amendment, as it has been construed by the courts. The Democratic Party did not exist in 1791.
I just have to answer this one....you know that's bogus, there are no concrete rights to privacies anymore than there is a guarantee of complete free speech.
LoneStarMadam wrote:I have some errands to run but here is another good example of the moonbats hypocricy. I'm sure I will have more on my return.
remember how the dems praised & worshiped on MM & then had a tizzy about "The Road to 911"
No, actually I don't, please remind us. BTW is that a Glock you carry in your purse? Is shoot to kill your motto? Living near the mexican border do you feel killing is a solution? To anything?
That's hilarious--so basically, you deny that the Fourth Amendment means what it patently says?
You never fail to entertain.
Setanta wrote:That's hilarious--so basically, you deny that the Fourth Amendment means what it patently says?
You never fail to entertain.
It's just not that cut & dry, free speech is not so free, ask anybody that has yelled fire in a theatre, or any muslim that mentions
allah or OBL on an airplane.
Now try to keep your earnings privte from the IRS, can I bring you anything in that jail cell, if you do that.
If they don't have a duly sworn warrant, i won't be in jail. If they do, i'll cooperate. You're erecting a strawman--no one has ever claimed that we have an
absolute right to privacy; the point is simply that our right to privacy is protected by due process.
dyslexia wrote:LoneStarMadam wrote:I have some errands to run but here is another good example of the moonbats hypocricy. I'm sure I will have more on my return.
remember how the dems praised & worshiped on MM & then had a tizzy about "The Road to 911"
No, actually I don't, please remind us. BTW is that a Glock you carry in your purse? Is shoot to kill your motto? Living near the mexican border do you feel killing is a solution? To anything?
A Baretta, & no i just shoot to kill if I believe my life por my familys life is in danger. Killing is better than getting killed no matter where you live.
I guess those errands weren't that pressing, huh?
