***Mary Frances Berry, Victoria Wilson, Bill Clinton and Tom Daschel***

Stardate: 0112.8

[The Wizard]

As I watch Pearl Harbor tonight, I think about the great shame these people do to those who fought and died for our freedoms:

Freedoms that these people abuse for self interest.

But then there's James and his FreeRepublic.com on the other side of the scale, and that's a mighty heavy weight indeed

[Howlin]

Bush has another appointment to make this month; that will make it four to four. I wonder what happens in the case of a tie?

[Howlin]

Would you care to state the PROOF that somebody appointed to fulfill another's term gets six years? I'm not talking about NEW appointee; I am talking about somebody appointed to serve OUT a time, which is clearly what is done in this circumstances in every other committee this government has.

Would you care to explain what Ms. Wilson is the exception to every rule?

And would you answer my question about the Kennedy Center? Or doesn't that fit in with your agenda here this week?

[Howlin]

Clinton didn't have authority from Congress to limit her term.

I'm having trouble here understanding what you mean. Exactly where is it written that appointees to commissions and committees will have entirely new terms, and that no appointments will be made to fill terms of those who leave for any reason.

I'd like a CLEAR cite on that.......no your "reading" or "interpretation."

What I'm trying to figure out here is why you, and only you, believe Berry has a leg to stand on. BTW, Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes just said on The Beltway Boys that she is dead wrong; what do YOU think they are wrong?

[Humidston]

Not more than three of the members shall at any one time be of the same political party.

Yes, and Barry and Walker call themselves "Independents." The committee is comprised of 2 I's, 2 Dems and ONE Rep. Sounds fair to me! not

[aristeides]

The statute says the president needs the concurrence of a majority of the commission's members to replace the chairman. If there are eight members, that means he needs five. But, if there were only to be seven members at some point (because of a lapse of one appointment, and a failure to fill the seat, presumably,) I guess he would only need four.

[deport]

With 8 members they need 5 to conduct business... thus any combination of the 5+ that gives a majority rules as I read it.

[VRWC_minion]

My proof is the language of the law itself which reads "The term of office of each member of the Commission shall be 6 years

Which part of "SHALL BE 6 YEARS" is unclear ?

[VRWC_minion]

And would you answer my question about the Kennedy Center? Or doesn't that fit in with your agenda here this week?

I don't see what Kennedy Center has to do with this issue. The legislation is what controls. The wording of this particular law is the issue not what happened with another angency. In fact if this were the EOCC, I would have exact opposite opinion because that committee's statutes says explicity that someone filling an unexpired term ends when the original term ends. This legislation doesn't have that wording.

[VRWC_minion]

I'm having trouble here understanding what you mean. Exactly where is it written that appointees to commissions and committees will have entirely new terms, and that no appointments will be made to fill terms of those who leave for any reason.

You are assuming that its a one rule fits all situation. Its not. Each committee has different legislation with different wording. This particular legislation cleary says the members term SHALL BE 6 YEARS, period.

[VRWC_minion]

what do YOU think they are wrong?

I am not making the claim who is right or wrong. I am merely making the claim that Berry does have a point and its not a black and white situation. The law clearly says SHALL BE 6 YEARS.

Shall is a very strong legal word. It ordinarily means MUST, without exception and this act provides for no exceptions.

[VRWC_minion]

Yes, and Barry and Walker call themselves "Independents." The committee is comprised of 2 I's, 2 Dems and ONE Rep. Sounds fair to me! not

More proof our guys had their heads up their butts when they voted on the wording.

[Howlin]

I am not making the claim who is right or wrong

Do not parse words with me.

When you say she has a strong case, which you did on several occasions right on this thread, you ARE claiming she is right.

Now, answer my question: where does it say that this commission abides by different rules than all the others; where does it SPECIFICALLY say that there will be NO appointed to fill out terms? And where does it say SPECIFICALLY that ANY new appointee appointed to fulfill a term has six years?

[Howlin]

And the other one: why is it just YOU that thinks this? Why are legal experts on TV wrong? Are they trying to throw us off?

[deport]

PDF file with members, expirations, type appt.

The next one is 2/11/02 as I read it. It's listed as a XS appt so don't know what that is.........

[GussiedUp]

Wilson should be honored she was asked to serve her nation. Now that the term of this service has expired she should gracefully step down and be thankful she was allowed to serve.

This is exactly how I feel. Whatever happened to graciousness? Have we come to a point now where flushing ones’ own dignity down the toilet in desperate attempts to hold onto “what was” is now lauded? I wouldn’t have the NERVE to basically tell the President of the United States to “kiss off” in so many words. Geez, liberals don’t LOOK a gift horse in the mouth – they flat kick it’s teeth out. Liberals are SO utterly without class and dignity.

[Howlin]

Let me find the articles from the other day; I'm sure one expires this month, because the article stated that Bush had already made his intention to nominate some woman clear, and that would tip the scales to 4 to 4.

[VRWC_minion]

And the other one: why is it just YOU that thinks this? Why are legal experts on TV wrong? Are they trying to throw us off?

I don't have the benefit of hearing the legal experts. They may be right. I can actually think of quite a number of ways that the interpretation I am making is incorrect.

For example bith prior precedent where the courts ruled on similar issue and proof of congressional intent. The most important being proof of congressional intent. I don't think clinton's stated intent would impact this issue the way some think. Its evidence that his understanding of congressional intent was when signing the law (if he did).

[GussiedUp]

You are assuming that its a one rule fits all situation. Its not. Each committee has different legislation with different wording. This particular legislation cleary says the members term SHALL BE 6 YEARS, period.

When Clinton appointed her to finish the term, it was stated/written that she would FINISH the term and had an ending date FOR the term she was put in to complete. She accepted the appointment KNOWING those were the terms. I don't think she can just change horses in mid-stream and get away with it....unless of course she comes in front of a liberal judge. It is not as cut and dry and you're hoping. She accepted under altered conditions.

[deport]

The link above is to the GPO web site listing all members employees, pay grades and expriration dates.......

[VRWC_minion]

When you say she has a strong case, which you did on several occasions right on this thread, you ARE claiming she is right.

Ok, I will back down here. I don't know enough about other precedents or the history of this particular law to make a true assessment if I think she has a strong case. For all I know a similar challenge was already made and the SC rules against her interpretation.

My point has been from the outset that this lady's posistion is not totally without merit which is where everyone on FR has started with their opinion.

I didn't like what I read when I read the actual wording of the law and I have to say her argument soes have merit (If I "said strong case" then I was clearly overstating my case), sorry.