Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

DriftingByTheStorm

CitizenRick wrote:

Will all you SORE LOSERS leave it alone already!

I laugh at your pathetic reaches! GET OVER IT!!!!!!

Maybe you WILL have the last laugh....but I highly doubt it.

When the constitution goes, we are all losers, bub.

Samuel Adams wrote:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Commy

people tend to have a lot of faith in the people who designed a country to protect wealthy landowners and slave owners, for some reason.

Mutiny! he cried

CitizenRick wrote:

Will all you SORE LOSERS leave it alone already!

I laugh at your pathetic reaches! GET OVER IT!!!!!!

Maybe you WILL have the last laugh....but I highly doubt it.

this section was for DEBATE or so I thought. I'm sorry you dislike criticism against the golden one but you will just have to get over it and quit w/ the sore loser remarks. Otherwise you're not a very good citizen, Rick

Mutiny! he cried

Commy wrote:

people tend to have a lot of faith in the people who designed a country to protect wealthy landowners and slave owners, for some reason.

some people are too wrapped up in it being their turn to play 'king of the hill' and gloating in their power, they have no intention of letting anyone interfere with that. that's why they just call people names instead of addressing points given.

Until the Republicans win, then they'll be back to criticizing the corrupt, crooks appointed to the cabinet and crying about the dismissive attitudes of the republicans....They bitch about the cycle when it's them at the bottom and yet when they have the chance to break it they jus give in and keep it going because their power and ego trips are too tempting, I guess. The only way to break a cycle is to stop being a part of it

RolandTD20Kdrummer

CitizenRick wrote:

Will all you SORE LOSERS leave it alone already!

I laugh at your pathetic reaches! GET OVER IT!!!!!!

Maybe you WILL have the last laugh....but I highly doubt it.

When it comes to politics....your mind is a weapon against yourself.

seek guidance.

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

people tend to have a lot of faith in the people who designed a country to protect wealthy landowners and slave owners, for some reason.

wrong.

I have a lot of faith in the heart, and purity of thought that some of the more "important" founders put in to their work.

You can cast accusations down from another age, back at those men.
However, you would miss the point.
The Declaration and The Constitution were compromises.

To illustrate how one sided your "to protect wealthy landowners and slave owners" comment is, one need only consider Jefferson's original Declaration:

A Grievance From Thomas Jefferson's Original Declaration of Independence wrote:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Jefferson was attempting to speak out against slavery in the very foundation of our country, for heavens sake! Earlier in his life he even tried to get bill through the Virginia colonial legislature against it. Franklin, who had once even traded slaves earlier in his life, was staunchly against it by the time of the Revolution:

Franklin's view on the matter wrote:

The Pennsylvanian Society for the Relief of Free Negroe's Unlawfully Held in Bondage was formed by Franklin, Benezet and others in a tavern in 1775

-source

John Adams and his wife Abigail were utterly and unequivocaly opposed to slavery, found it abhorrent and repugnant, and thought the concept fundamentaly incongruous with the ideals of "liberty". John actually argued against using slaves to count in the apportioning of taxes, based on the fact that it would constitute "taxation without representation"! His cousin and equal founding father, Samuel Adams introduced the bill making slavery illegal in Massachusetts. John's son, John Q. Adams (6th US President), was quite active in opposing slavery.

Several of the other founding fathers were similarly minded.

But the focus here is not and should not be on the opinons of our founders with respects to the reprehensible institution of slavery, it should be on the legacy they left us. And if one is curious enough to examine the records, they should find plenty of proof that most of our great forefather had a genuine compassion for their fellow man, and truly sought to better the lot of all mankind through their actions.

While our founders all had their flaws (Hamilton and Franklin adulterers,J. Adams' subversion of liberty with the signing of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Jefferson dying a slaveholder, etc.),theytruly were forward-thinking and visionary men. You do your country a great disservice by degrading their name in such fashion as to insinuate that the entirety of their effort was intended solely to the preserverance of their privelage.

You, sir, owe the whole of your liberty to them -- whatever left of it you see fit to willingly claim, anyhow. Legitimate arguments for sure can be had over the deeds of our forefathers, but attempts to make them irrelavent by a general villainization of their character are absurd.

South of Seattle

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

haha....that bitch is always trying to upstage Obama

unsung

I don't see why everyone is so surprised, it is just more business as usual. You guys didn't really buy into that whole "change" line, did you?

baraka

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The Declaration and The Constitution were compromises.

I agree with this, Drifting. It is true that the Constitution is/was a compromise. The founders hardly agreed on any one thing. Of course, this is why I think looking to the founders for 'original intent' has its shortcomings. It certainly would have varied among them. This is why I think best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, to look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Interpretive philosophies of the possible justices are certainly up for debate.

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

wrong.

I have a lot of faith in the heart, and purity of thought that some of the more "important" founders put in to their work.

You can cast accusations down from another age, back at those men.
However, you would miss the point.
The Declaration and The Constitution were compromises.

To illustrate how one sided your "to protect wealthy landowners and slave owners" comment is, one need only consider Jefferson's original Declaration:



Jefferson was attempting to speak out against slavery in the very foundation of our country, for heavens sake! Earlier in his life he even tried to get bill through the Virginia colonial legislature against it. Franklin, who had once even traded slaves earlier in his life, was staunchly against it by the time of the Revolution:

-source

Jefferson also called John Quincy Adams defense of Jackson's genocide in Florida as being, "among the ablest I have ever seen, both as to logic and style." Adams was defending Jackson's brutality and slaughter of the native population of Florida, and Jefferson was so impressed he urged wide distribution of the report, "to maintain in Europe a correct opinion of our political morality"

Jefferson and Madison both believed that power should be in the hands of the "natural aristocracy" "men like themselves", who defend property rights. -from Edmund Morgan.

The reigning doctrine was "the people who own the country ought to govern it." (John Jay)

John Adams and his wife Abigail were utterly and unequivocaly opposed to slavery, found it abhorrent and repugnant, and thought the concept fundamentaly incongruous with the ideals of "liberty". John actually argued against using slaves to count in the apportioning of taxes, based on the fact that it would constitute "taxation without representation"! His cousin and equal founding father, Samuel Adams introduced the bill making slavery illegal in Massachusetts. John's son, John Q. Adams (6th US President), was quite active in opposing slavery.

John Q Adam's racist paper to Spain, supporting Jackson's massacre in Florida, "has long been recognized as one of the most important state papers in the history of American foreign relations." according to William Weeks.

He blamed everything on the British, to the point where he thought the indians, "negroes" and all the pirates were united against the US, as a result of British tampering. That was his excuse for the slaughter of the native American population. He was so taken by this idea he said, "from the period of our established independence to this day, all the Indian wars with which we have been afflicted have been distinctly traceable to the instigation of the English traders or agents."

Both Jefferson and Adams had no problem supporting the idea that "the people who own the country ought to govern it" and with genocide. They framed our constitution, but again, the idea that the people who own the country ought to govern it seems to be supporting the idea that those in power should maintain that power, which goes against the very core idea of democracy.

Several of the other founding fathers were similarly minded.

But the focus here is not and should not be on the opinons of our founders with respects to the reprehensible institution of slavery, it should be on the legacy they left us. And if one is curious enough to examine the records, they should find plenty of proof that most of our great forefather had a genuine compassion for their fellow man, and truly sought to better the lot of all mankind through their actions.

While our founders all had their flaws (Hamilton and Franklin adulterers,J. Adams' subversion of liberty with the signing of the Alien & Sedition Acts, Jefferson dying a slaveholder, etc.),theytruly were forward-thinking and visionary men. You do your country a great disservice by degrading their name in such fashion as to insinuate that the entirety of their effort was intended solely to the preserverance of their privelage.

You, sir, owe the whole of your liberty to them -- whatever left of it you see fit to willingly claim, anyhow. Legitimate arguments for sure can be had over the deeds of our forefathers, but attempts to make them irrelavent by a general villainization of their character are absurd.

I could make lists like this for almost any founding father.


I am not trying to villianize them, simply pointing out that they were human beings, and as flawed as any. they had some great ideas regarding liberty, and it is sickening to see those liberties being taken away by current administrations, but it does them a great disservice to take without question any ideas they may have had. They were very progressive for their time because they questioned the status quo. For us to accept without question everything they stood for goes against the very concept of liberty.

CitizenRick

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

When it comes to politics....your mind is a weapon against yourself.

seek guidance.

Ha Ha!

At least I'm not the one in a bunker with 10 years worth of supplies and a laptop spreading conspiracy theories.

Follow your own advice.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

CitizenRick wrote:

Ha Ha!

At least I'm not the one in a bunker with 10 years worth of supplies and a laptop spreading conspiracy theories.

Follow your own advice.

lol...try again...

time looking forward will be your education.

CitizenRick

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

When the constitution goes, we are all losers, bub.

Yeah...when it come to folowing the constitution by the letter...we have been losers for over 200 years.

Is this really an issue? Give me a break.

DixieN

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

No Shit.
This should be fun to watch.

judicialwatch.org
Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5188

Washington, DC -- December 2, 2008
Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton Appointment
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "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 encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.

Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.

"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."

She should be a particularly good match then for Obama who is, don't you know, constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the US because the hospital bed he was born on hadn't been naturalized, therefore making his birth one that technically did not happen in the US, even though the bed was in the US at the time of his birth. Hillary has a corrupt chocolate chip cookie recipe that she got from a Martian. And she's a powerful smart old woman, making her ineligible on the face of things. Constitutionally speaking, Obama should only be getting 3/5 of a vote at most, not the presidency...and Hillary should go back to doing what women do best...shakin' them pots and washin' them pans. What is the world coming to????

Mutiny! he cried

DixieN wrote:

She should be a particularly good match then for Obama who is, don't you know, constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the US because the hospital bed he was born on hadn't been naturalized, therefore making his birth one that technically did not happen in the US, even though the bed was in the US at the time of his birth. Hillary has a corrupt chocolate chip cookie recipe that she got from a Martian. And she's a powerful smart old woman, making her ineligible on the face of things.

I know, what were these suckers expecting, actual change????

Obama may be appointing corrupt corporate whores, crooks and criminals but those are the only people with experience to do what Obama tells them, right?

DixieN

Well, Obama will bring change as best he can, but it tickles me to think how wide-eyed and naive most of us are. I think some of us were thinking that after he was elected that he'd appoint people newly descending directly from heaven or something. He had a cute, sweet slogan that certainly was more attractive than the old, hateful slogans on the Republican side...but people, it was just a slogan. He does actually have reality to deal with after the PR is all said and done.