Dems push Gonzales 'no-confidence' vote [Unconstitutional]

Associated Press ^ | June 11, 2007 | LAURIE KELLMAN

[spald]

Has a no-confidence vote ever been held in the Senate up to now?

[AmericaUnited]

In Article I for the Congress, no provision for a noconfidence vote

So, that doesn't mean it is prohibited. The vote is as meaningless as if they voted on whether they had confidence that women could vote "properly". If there is no actual law being enacted, it's meaningless.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Arlen Specter is the RINO’s RINO, isn’t he?!

[Liberty Valance]

Unconstitutional

Update:

“Republicans blocked the Senate’s no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, turning back a symbolic Democratic effort to prod him from office despite blistering criticism from lawmakers in both parties. The 53-38 vote to move the resolution to full debate fell seven short of the 60 required.”

[Taichi]

“There is no provision in the US Constitution for a no-confidence vote,”

---

And there’s no reason why we should care what the Dem’s and the rino’s are saying.

[Popman]

"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said

Interesting way to phase it, Mr President

I though it was "government of the people, by the people, for the people" ?

At lest Abe Lincoln thought so.

I had no idea the government was yours, I believe it is your administration belongs to you, the government belongs to the people

[AmericaUnited]

Unconstitutional - Stupid, but not unconstitutional.

Why all the confusion between an actual law being voted on and some "opinion" of the Congress?

[Nagual]

Los Democrats, son la meirda! mas grande del siglo!!!!!!

[AmericaUnited]

If that's your position, should any Repubilcan vote "no", "yes" or "present"?

I think "present" is the correct choice. yea or nay is just legitimizing this stupidity.

[spald]

So, that doesn't mean it is prohibited

Has a no-confidence vote ever been held in the Senate up to now?

[RebekahT]

It’s not unconstitutional for them to have the vote. But their votes or opinions of Gonzalez has no constitutional significance. They can “vote” on whatever they want.

[RebekahT]

“Interesting way to phase it, Mr President. I though it was “government of the people, by the people, for the people” ? At lest Abe Lincoln thought so. I had no idea the government was yours, I believe it is your administration belongs to you, the government belongs to the people.”

Quit nitpicking. He obviously meant administration.

[AmericaUnited]

Has a no-confidence vote ever been held in the Senate up to now? Don't know but that's irrelevant as to whether it's constitutional.

[spald]

Then, the Constitution is a living document as the liberals have suggested.

The U.S. Senate has never held a no-confidence vote before. Or at least not one they could find at the Senate Historian's office. At the moment, the Democrats aren't entirely sure what to make of the historical precedent.

"A lot of things have happened in 200 plus years of congressional history," said Senate historian Richard Baker. At Baker's office in the U.S. Capitol, they search through old newspapers online and internal records to try to find another instance of a no-confidence vote. But so far, they are stumped.

No-confidence votes, after all, are a European convention -- in countries on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, governments are usually controlled by the political party (or coalition of parties) and headed by the prime minister. In those states, a no-confidence vote is used by the out-of-power party to demand a new election. A successful no-confidence vote means it's time for a new prime minister.

from: ABC News

[spald]

see post 34. This is uncharted territory.

Unconstitutional, in my opinion.

Vote "chocolate", not "aye" nor "nay".

[ulm1]

moot point.vote defeated

[spald]

moot1      /mut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[moot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1.	open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.

2.	of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

3.	Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

–verb (used with object)

4.	to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.

5.	to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.

6.	Archaic. to argue (a case), esp. in a mock court.

–noun

7.	an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.

8.	an argument or discussion, esp. of a hypothetical legal case.

9.	Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.

---

[Origin: bef. 900; ME mot(e) meeting, assembly, OE gemōt; c. ON mōt, D gemoet meeting. See meet¹]

—Related forms

mooter, noun

mootness, noun

—Synonyms 1. disputable, disputed, unsettled. 4. debate, dispute, discuss.

—Antonyms 1. indisputable. 4. agree.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[Popman]

Quit nitpicking. He obviously meant administration.

I believe he committed what is known as as "Freudian slip"

After throwing conservatives under the bus for the last time, I can nitpick Mr. President all I want

Read my tagline

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

English?

[ulm1]

. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.