Posted on 05/26/2005 4:46:34 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good morning!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of our Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
The place is England, the year is 1066. The Norman prince William had just settled the question of English succession through military force, and had become William I, King of England.
William, of course, did not grow up in England, and did not speak Anglo-Saxon, but rather French, a version referred to now as Low French. Low French became the language of the court. It, however, didn't become the language of the land. The people continued to speak Anglo-Saxon, and were thus separated from their leadership through a language barrier.
Over time, people picked up a word of French here and there, and it worked into the language, and the Court picked up Anglo-Saxon, and a sort of new language began to emerge, English. It didn't have all of the trappings of today, indeed Low English would be in many aspects unrecognizable by most folks who would attempt to read it today. Continued seeding of words by the French-speaking English nobility further enhanced (or corrupted?) the language into Middle English, the real merger of the Court toungue and that of its subjects. Middle English, the language of the British middle ages, was as different from French as say, Norwegian, but at least the leaders and the led could reasonably communicate without the need of intermediaries.
Along with the continued movement of the English language began a movement of the English people, in the creation of the greatest Empire the world has ever known. One of the places settled was a strange and forbidding land that became known as America.
Eventually, the Court of England saw fit to assert control over the lands settled by the English people in America. Those in America saw this, but didn't understand their strange language--providing taxes to a government in which they didn't participate? Having to quarter troops without being asked? Seeing officials appointed without any review or input?
Unlike William, however, the inhabitants of America successfully asked the interlopers to leave, thus allowing the governance of the land to those who lived there.
These governors, over time, saw fit to establish a contract between themselves and those they led, thus establishing the notion the governed did so at the mercy and pleasure of those so ruled. The rules of this Government were to be laid out in the toungue of the land so that all who read the guidance would be able to clearly understand.
One of these rules, located in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of this document, commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States ("America") provided certain powers to the Chief Executive and read thus:
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.
Of particular interest are the words provided by these authors relating to nominations:
...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,....
Thus in the English of the day, the late 18th century, was established the notion the Chief Executive would nominate Judges. No other body in the Government, according to the public contract, could perform the function. The Senate would provide advice and consent on those nominations. In other words, it would deliberate and vote. Very clear, and easily understood by the people of the time.
Two hundred years later, a new language is being proposed by the leaders, particularly those located in the Senate, that body that will "advise and consent" upon the nominations of the Chief Executive, the President.
Senators, at least 14 of them, have decided that "advice" occurs before the nomination, and is an essential part of the "advice and consent" process. In analyzing the new toungue of leadership, it becomes apparent that logic is not a key component of that language. For Senators are free to provide all the advice they wish, and often they do, to the President at any time they desire on any topic they choose. This would include potential nominations.
That, however, is NOT the "advice and consent" discussed in the contract with the people, it is run-of-the-mill horsetrading. Some Senators, in their new language of the Court, have decided, however, the contract with the people codifies this horsetrading within the "advice and consent" role.
Again, another indicator that logic is not exactly a key component of the new language of the Court (Senate).
For this to be so, there would be times when pre-nomination language would be within the "advice and consent" role, and there would be times when it wouldn't. And how could you tell? It's entirely possible that George Orwell couldn't sort that one out.
Certainly the drafters of the Government's contract with the people couldn't have figured it out, so it stands to reason that isn't the meaning of the clause. Clearly there has to be something upon which to advise and consent. Until a nomination is actually made, there cannot be advice, or consent, as nothing exists. Except in the new language of the Senate.
So, it appears that Senators are free to advise and consent officially, advise and consent unofficially, advise and consent maybe, or advice and consent not at all. The people of the land, however, haven't a clue as to what this new language of the leaders mean; the Senate speaks in strange toungues the likes of which were the case with the Norman conquerors.
The Norman conquerors liked the situation they had, it allowed to keep the masses ignorant. It could be that Senators like their new language for the same reason.
Like the Norman's that preceded them, the American Senators have adopted a language that belies understanding by the people who are governed.
Like the Norman's that preceded them, they will be forced to eventually adopt a tougue that can be understood by the masses.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
I've found some interesting "stuff" in the footnotes of history books. LOL
I don't suppose Amnesty International has a suggestion for what to do with these poor prisoners, do they?
In my opinion, those guys at Gitmo are lucky we didn't just shove them out the door of a C-130 when we were about 15,000 feet over the Atlantic.
I'd go for 15,000 feet over Gitmo, myself.
Molly after watching that pathetic display of Voinivich on the senate floor I am proud to say I did not vote for that girlie man.
If when he was injured they believed he was going to recover they certainly would not want to announce he was shot. Someone might ask why Allah did not protect him.
But if it became clear he was not going to make it they would not just announce his death out of the blue. They would release he was injured and being treated, and then gradually reveal his death.
I think he is either dead or so bad there is no hope of recovery. If he was going to recover they would never tell us he was hurt at least not before he was fully recovered.
Good Morning Dolly. I'm in from my morning Garden Walk About. I am happy to report the rabbits didn't get any more of my Cosmos overnight. I guess the remaining ones are well enough hidden that they won't find them so easily.
I must get with the housework now, so I can get outside and get the containers planted up.
Lots of rumors, none heavily confirmed, but there is a long trail of evidence here that is hard to debunk.
The more dramatically Voiny cries, the better I feel about the Bolton appointment.
I still want Zarqawi to die, not by a gunshot wound, but by having his head SAWED off with his hands tied behind his back wearing an orange jumpsuit with someone chanting something he doesn't want to hear, just like he sawed off the heads of his victims.
LOL!
A convicted rapist, on parole living in New York, may have cared for as many as 50 foster children. Nicholas Chaney was convicted in 1989 on two counts of third-degree rape in Oregon and Washington. Chaney has admitted he had sex with a 16-year-old girl. CHANEY INDICATED HIS CONVICTIONS ON HIS NEW YORK FOSTER PARENT APPLICATION!!!
That became evident with the election of hillary to be their 'senator'.
Well, it looks like her "village" fell down on reviewing foster parents...
Awiey "Chucky" Hernandez walked into a New York City police precinct office in the Williamsburg section of the city. He proceeds to stand right next to a "wanted" poster--a wanted poster describing him and containing a picture of him.
He was arrested.
Yes, her 'village' couldn't care less about either foster parents or children.
LOL - yeah - I caught this story on the "Nearly Normal News" spot the Christian radio station I listen to on rising does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.