Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by DStaub, Dec 2, 2008.
U. S. Constitution, specifically, Article One, Section Six. Ignor it? What next?
The way I read it is that the person can't hold two jobs at once. Clinton will have to give up her Senate seat. That is and has been obvious. Same with Obama and Biden. Both will give up their places in the senate. McCain would have done the same had he been elected.
There's nothing in that clause that prohibits Obama from serving as President. All it says is that no elected representative is allowed to be appointed to a government job which was created while they are still in office or which saw a pay increase while they were serving their elected term. Obviously the PotUS isn't a recently created position and the last pay increase was back in 2000. It wouldn't matter anyways because the President isn't an appointed position.
It's not in regards to Obama...but his appointment of Hillary Clinton to SecState. *She's* the one who cannot be appointed, per the Constitution.
Guess I should have read the linked article huh? :
Burn her! She's a witch!
You give good witches a bad name.
You got it! It has been done before.
Gotta burn somethin'
Your accusation wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. Women from affluent and wealthy families were seldom denounced as witches. It was always women who inhabited the margins of society--widows, beggars, old maids--who were most vulnerable to the charge.
Might I suggest 'terrorist' which is a more much inclusive category that can be applied to almost any situation?
I think the name Clinton is an anathema burden to carry as it is.
Warmonger works well in those situations as well.
Since the authors already admit that they're not lawyers, they should probably stop trying to be.
This really isn't an issue whatsoever. As the article specifically states, three of the last seven US presidents ran into it. All Congress has to do, as has been done each time in the past, is lower the salary back to what it was before.
Why ignore it when they can comply fully and still nominate her?
In fairness I think it can be rightfully argued that three of the last seven administrations circumvented the constitution with aide form congress by appointing candidates that were disqualified by Article 1 Section 6.
"Emoluments." Now there's a handy word to know.
Throw her in the lake. If she floats she's a witch. If she sinks she innocent.
The woman is buoyant as a battle ship, those cankles are floatation devices enough.
:laugh2: cankles, just one of those words that makes you laugh.
I think the healing has begun as bi-partisan support for "No, not Hillary" seems to be high.