Snow pulls out Constitution as prop

WorldNetDaily ^ | November 13, 2006 | Les Linsolving

[ovrtaxt]

Snow pulls out Constitution as prop

Tells reporter he sees nothing there about 'party composition' of Senate

---

Posted: November 13, 2006
4:37 p.m. Eastern

By Les Kinsolving

© 2006 

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow today pulled out a copy of the U.S. Constitution in hopes the document might help him answer a question from WND about whether or not Democrats can legally claim a majority in the U.S. Senate come January.

The spokesman was asked if legal action might ensue since Democrats in the new Congress will hold only 49 seats but still claim the majority because the two independents in the body – Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut – say they will caucus with the Democrats.

"In the primary election in Connecticut, the Democratic Party, as you know, repudiated Senator Lieberman who went on to be the winner as an independent," noted WND. "And the Democratic Party did not even have a nominee for the U.S. Senate in Vermont. Yet, they are claiming these two winners helped them constitute a majority in the Senate. And my question, doesn't the president believe this 'Democrats claim everybody' theory should and could be tested in court?

Responded Snow: "Lester, as you know, when it comes to the organization of Congress, people get to decide with whom they will caucus. And the indications are that Bernard Sanders and Joe Lieberman would caucus with Democrats. This is not something subject to court order, it is their personal choice."

"How can the Democrats claim that they've got a majority if two of them were not elected as Democrats?" countered WND.

At that point, Snow pulled out a document, but reporters initially didn't know what it was.

"Is that Geneva Convention?" one reporter asked.

"I don't see anything here that has to do with party composition and the proper selection," Snow said, looking at the document.

"Is that Mao's Little Red Book?" another reporter suggested.

"Oh, watch it. This is the Constitution – with a flag on it," Snow revealed.

WND also asked Snow today for his reaction to the most recent insult of Vice President Cheney by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

"I'm not going to comment, but thank you," responded Snow.

[tpaine]

"-- I don't see anything here that has to do with party composition and the proper selection," Snow said, looking at the document. --"


He should have then referred them to Article I, Sec 5; -- "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings;"...
-- And then referred them to Article VI:

"-- The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; --"

That's what they all ~really~ need to hear..

[stylin19a]

see post #41

[stylin19a]

you keep this up, pretty soon you'll have everybody reading that document.

[Dead Corpse]

You say it like that's a "bad" thing... ;-)

[Cheburashka]

well if the senate can make up their own rules, then republicans have how many votes, and the rat patrol has how many votes...then to equal those two parties, doesn't the independents have to have equal amounts also??? If no, then the independents have no say....they are neither Republican nor rat patrol....so I would say the senate belongs to the Republicans....
---
The independents get to choose with whom they caucus. They will caucus with the Democrats.

1970-1976 James Buckley, Conservative Party from New York caucused with the Republicans. There were no complaints.

Even if you're elected as a member of a specific party, you don't have to caucus with them. Jim Jeffords proved that.

[Cheburashka]

If Lieberman jumsps to the Republicans Chaffee will jump to the democraps.
---
Chaffee can jump his way to the unemployment line. He won't be in the Senate come January. And until then the Republicans have a majority, with or without Chafee.

[tpaine]

"-- The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; --"

That's what they all ~really~ need to hear..

you keep this up, pretty soon you'll have everybody reading that document.

That'll be the day..

[narby]

WND jumped the shark when it started promoting intelligent design. But this stupid question is a new low.

The positions of "majority leader" and such aren't in the constitution. The Senate constitutionally has the power to control it's own organization, and if a court intervened it would be violating the separation of powers.

[OrioleFan]

Would a Libertarian caucas with Republicans?

[narby]

I read the constitution, and it says that there has to be more of one than another, didn't say how many more...so I am guessing that like Republicans 50/ rat patrol 49 and 2 independents....

Where is in the Constitution you read anything about party affiliation? The senate is free to organize itself in any way they want, using any rules they want. If they make up rules about majority this and minority that, that's their own choice, and the idea that a court could challenge a co-equal branch of government on the subject of Senate rules is just stupid.

[OrioleFan]

Tony should have started reading it out loud. As he continues, they should note who leaves (and the order in which they leave). Bet Gregory would be the first out the door.

[HarleyLady27]

I used that as an example....sorry I should have put that in there....it did say that they can basically do whatever they want, I just wanted to know if that way was what they were talking about, as example:

[billbears]

At that point, Snow pulled out a document, but reporters initially didn't know what it was.

Wait a minute. A politician's spokesman has a copy of the Constitution? I would recommend getting it to politicians from both parties but then again it wouldn't really matter would it? They haven't bothered with that document except of course when it comes in handy as a crutch to support their immediate causes

[ovrtaxt]

lol that's hilarious!

[ovrtaxt]

I'm cracking up here reading these replies- doesn't everyone here realize that Kinsolving is the biggest smartass in DC? The guy is great! Lighten up, Freepers.

[CollegeRepublican]

I get to listen to Les on the radio sometimes; he is great. He was hard on Michael Steele running here in Maryland, but I don't hold it against him. He does get a kick out of tweaking the press secretary.

He asked the last guy about the amnesty bill and would it be a breach of the Presidential oath of office if Bush signed it into law, since he is the chief law enforcement officer in the nation.

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[nutmeg]

Snowflake ping!

[eeevil conservative]

ROFLLL!!!!

I LOVE Tony, but gosh that is a great point!

If you are going to go as far as to pull out the Consitution as a prop, to make a "sarcastic" point to an obnoxious reporter... you better be prepared to have that same "sarcasm" thrown back at ya....

In fact- I bet if Tony reads your post - he laughs as well..

[Puppage]

At that point, Snow pulled out a document, but reporters initially didn't know what it was.

Kinda like pulling out a crucifix on a vampire, I suspect.