Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arlen Specter to switch party

Posted on 04/28/2009 9:06:48 AM PDT by Joiseydude

Breaking news on FNC


TOPICS: US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: 111th; bushlegacy; pa2010; rinoalert; rovelegacy; specter; sphincter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-231 last
To: dfwgator
Norm Coleman lost to two TV celebrities.

You could run those two against almost anybody and they would have a good chance of winning. Our electorate is not made up of geniuses, you know.

221 posted on 04/28/2009 4:04:47 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Norm'll fight this whole Minnesota mess, but I'll be pleasantly shocked and surprised to see it go any other way but for Franken.

Once that happens, though, Arlen just sealed two years worth of our doom.
222 posted on 04/28/2009 4:05:07 PM PDT by Category Four (Joy, Fun, the Joke Proper, and Flippancy ... Flippancy is the best of all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution.

What they decided in 1787 was about 130 years before 17th amendment was adopted. Would they have decided differently at the constitutional convention if what was adopted in 17th amendment happened then? Possibly.

Like I said, I don't agree the judicial rulings on this and a mechanism of removal of Senators should be available to the citizens. IMO, the founders would have placed a recall provision in the constitution if they would have known what the modern day Congress has become. Inherently corrupt. An amendment on this issue should be added along with term limits for senators and congressman. I'll probably comment on this r later...I got things to do at the moment.

223 posted on 04/28/2009 4:21:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Joiseydude

The heat is on, so Specter “cuts and runs” to the party of “cut and run!”

No loss!!


224 posted on 04/28/2009 4:36:42 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joiseydude

If anybody thought Specter was going to back the GOP on any filibuster, they were kidding themselves. He showed his colors on the porkulus bull.

Arlen Specter has just thrown himself on the ash heap of history. The only relevancy he ever had was as a “Republican” that agreed with Democrats. He can no longer play that schtick.

And people should remember that Pennsylvania is a pro-life state. The RATS had to nominate a self-described pro-life RAT in order to beat Santorum in 2006, a terrible year for the GOP.

Specter, now a pro-abortion Democrat, will be running against a pro-life Republican who does not alienate the Keystone State’s conservative base. If you bet on Specter to win next year, you will lose, as will Specter.


225 posted on 04/28/2009 4:42:16 PM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
It's interesting to note that the case that produced the second precedent mentioned in that, that states could not unilaterally alter length and number of terms served, was a 5-4 decision, U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). That one had Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia dissenting. Kennedy's concurrence, though, rested on the fact that the federal government is not just a federal government, but a "National Government" (citing McCulloch v. Maryland), and thus not subject to collateral interference by the states. It doesn't look like he left himself much room to change his mind.

The majority's opinion also cited McCulloch rested on the proposition that the 10th Amendment couldn't "reserve" rights to the states that the states did not have before the federal government was formed, i.e. qualification of candidates for federal office. I have to agree with Scalia's dissent and say their decision was based on a serious misreading of McCulloch.

While I don't see that the text of the Constitution prohibits recalls, I highly doubt that any Court that would hold the Voting Rights Act constitutional would allow states to recall congressmen.
226 posted on 04/28/2009 5:18:41 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I should add that that was something the delegates to the Constitutional Convention probably disagreed on themselves. It isn’t for nothing that our bicameral legislature itself was part of something we call the “Great Compromise.”

Second, the Constitutional Convention only drafted and proposed the Constitution. It required ratification by the states to give it legal effect. Whatever was going on behind the scenes at the Convention is only marginally relevant to what the text of the Constitution actually means.


227 posted on 04/28/2009 5:32:11 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

One of our problems is that a lot of “pro-life” Catholics vote socialist because they want the government programs.


228 posted on 04/29/2009 7:07:00 AM PDT by Theodore R. (GWB is gone: Now the American sheeple can sleep at night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of Rudy McRomney

Same view here.


229 posted on 04/29/2009 10:35:01 AM PDT by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

What a pathetic little man Arlen has proven himself to be ... everything in this man’s life is now exposed as totally self-aggrandizement, whne he admitted that his switch is because he could not win the primary election ... no fundamental values led his decision, no party loyalty directed his moves, not one past supposed accomplishment weighted his decision, only his inability to win the primary as a Republicn so he switched thinking democraps will actually embrace this little man incapable of fidelity.


230 posted on 04/29/2009 10:38:23 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I never understood why the party tolerated him after his actions related to the Bush judicial nominees between 2000 and 2004.


231 posted on 04/29/2009 11:05:43 AM PDT by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-231 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson