THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION!
Posted on 05/24/2005 8:14:07 PM PDT by AndyMeyers
Couldn't agree more!
Frist needs to take back control of the Republican Majority by disciplining McCain and the other turncoats.
_______________________________________________
This guy and the other Propeller Heads, like Orin Hatch and Anal Sphincter feel they have accomplished a great deal when they control their bowel movements.
The whole Congress is in Bed with the New World Order, the US Constitution is being sold out.
Sorry but I suspect it is perfectly legal for 14 members of the Senate to band together and decide to vote a certain way. That is what this is about.
Judge Bork was on Hannity today, and said this argument is hogwash. The Senate is entitled to set its own rules for the handling of nominees.
Exactly what did he say? That the filibusters are okay? That the filibusters are not okay? or that the Senate can decide either way?
vaudine
He does not like filibusters and believes they should not be used against nominees... as a matter of policy, not constitutional jurisprudence (he believes the filibuster rule is perfectly constitutional). A rule repealing the filibuster rule would likewise be constitutional, in Bork's estimation.
Let's get The U.S. Constitution Party on the ballot in all 50 states - select informed, patriotic, candidates for every office!
Yes, most certainly they can do that BUT, what they have done is UNconstitutional. Period.
An agreement between 14 senators is NOT binding on the President. You can not amend the constitution this way.
But the democrats will act AS IF this is now what "advise and consent" means. Do you really think that the democrats won't do this? When has it ever meant that the President MUST talk and get their approval first for his nominees?
Yep. It's similar to an alliance in "Survivor". :-)
This "compromise" has effectively fillibustered 7 out of 10 of Bush's nominees without the Dems even having to do it! What were those 7 Republ-Ocrats thinking? Oh, right, they weren't.
I got a telephone call from a good friend this afternoon, a highly educated and accomplished businessman, and generally a reliable conservative. However, he really surprised me by telling me how pleased he was that the cloture rule wasn't changed. "This is the way the founding fathers designed the Senate to operate and we have no business tampering with it," he said. He really thinks the 60 vote cloture rule is written into the Constitution.
And Reid has been feeding that fantasy with plainly deceitful statements and outrageous demagoguery.
I am not as disappointed in Senate Republicans as I am in my own countrymen, supposed conservatives, who ought to know better.
Judge Bork was on Hannity today, and said this argument is hogwash. The Senate is entitled to set its own rules for the handling of nominees.
I respect him immensely, but I believe Judge Bork is wrong. The Senate IS required to perform its Advice and Consent function. It is not optional.
The logic of this is quite simple and inescapable. The President is required to fill these vacancies ("...he shall nominate, and ...shall appoint..."). Now, those who try to dissemble and deny that the Senate's role in this process is mandatory by asserting that Article 2, Section 2 does not specifically say "the Senate shall" fail to grasp (or more likely deliberately ignore) that this contingency is covered by the Senate members' Oaths of Office. Again, the logic is simple and clear. If the Senate fails or refuses to perform their Advice and Consent function, then they are preventing or obstructing the President from fulfilling his mandated duty. Obstructing a Constitutional Officer, e.g. the President, from carrying out his duty is itself a violation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the phrase "Advice and Consent" in constitutional law means simply that the Senate must vote (or whatever other procedure they decide to use - they can read chicken entrails if they wish) to either approve to reject the President's nominee. That is ALL it means.
One other point needs to be addressed. Many people incorrectly use the term "Consent" by implying that it means that the Senate is commanded to "approve" the nomination. That is not the case. The phrase "Advice and Consent" is a term of art that in the accepted constitutional usage of 200 years means to vote. The Senate is free to either approve or reject the nominee. What they are not free to do is to avoid or refuse to participate in the process which the Constitution specifically outlines and requires, since by refusing to perform their Advice and Consent function in the Constitutionally mandated process for filling vacancies, they are, as stated above, obstructing another Constitutional Officer, the President, from fulfilling his constitutionally mandated duty.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION!
Well Linsey Graham and Saxby Chamblis tried to sue to have the Courts declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional. I don't think they won.
That part is not what I am talking about.
They probably aren't.
I was trying to restrict my comments to just the "advise and consent" part of the agreement. The Constitution does not allow the democratic spin, and these 7 RINO's that are agreeing with the dems doesn't make the constitution any different than it was yesterday.
The President does not need to advise with Congrees BEFORE
naming the judicial nomimees.
Thanks for the reminder of this; it's been years since I read it. Hamilton explains eloquently the emotional and political reasons, derived from human nature, upon which the wisdom of Article 2, Section 2 is based. All I did was distill it down to the simple basic logic of the actual text.
"The Constitution does not allow the democratic spin"
________________________________________
Sure it does, the first amendment specifically allows them to spin all they want. That doesn't make them correct, but so.
________________________________________
"The President does not need to advise with Congrees BEFORE
naming the judicial nomimees."
______________________________________________________
Of course not but a Senate could decide to not confirm any nominee they are not consulted about. Consultation is a red herring issue here. Clinton consulted with Hatch BECAUSE THE GOP WAS IN THE MAJORITY. I assure you that Bush also consults with the MAJORITY. The Dims now want the president to consult with the MINORITY. That is a different issue.
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.