“Preserving” the Constitution by Spitting on It

special to FreeRepublic ^ | 13 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Jen]

Great job Congressman Billybob! I'm so proud of my GA Senators.

[Congressman Billybob]

First things first. It is a huge, uphill battle to run for Congress. No reason to think about anything beyond that.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with your tag line. One of my books is "Why Term Limits?" on limits for members of Congress. Send me your snail mail address and I'll send you a copy.

John / Billybob

[mrsmith]

James Monroe TUESDAY, June 10, 1788 Virginia Ratification Convention: "He is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.
The concurrence of a bare majority of those who may be present will enable him to do these important acts, It does not require the consent of two thirds even of those who may be present."

James Madison did not dispute Monroe's criticism of the method of advise and consent.
Because it was a true and accurate statement.

Hey, but what was the Constitutional knowledge of the likes of Madison and Monroe compared to that of Schumer and Daschle?

(Did any of those Dem Senators who spoke of Madison mention that he wanted only a 1/3 vote of the Senate to approve appointments? I didn't think so LOL!)

[TexKat]

Thanks Howlin for the ping.

Congressman Billybob good luck on your endeavor and I totally agree with you on Zell Miller's speech and presentation.

[Scenic Sounds]

Very nicely done.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides in part: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . ."

If the Senate wants to, it can change its own rules and eliminate the filibuster altogether. I'm not sure either side really wants to do that, though, and I doubt very much that either side would be happy with any court that tried to interfere with the Senate's ability to make its own rules.

I've been hearing this same debate about the Senate's role in judicial nominations for decades. It's just inherently very political.

Again, good job!! ;-)

[MJY1288]

Great report John, Zell Miller is the last of a dying breed among the democrat party. The now completely left wing extremest controlled democratic party is collapsing right before our very eyes, and in my humble opinion this collapse of the democrat party will do more for the safety and security of this great nation of ours, than the fall of the Soviet Union and the fall of the democrat party will do more for the spread of freedom and democracy than the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The best thing that has happened to this republic of ours is the internet and talk radio, our voices are being heard and they are far from insignificant. The 2000 electorial map of counties won by President Bush speaks volumes of the power conservatives have in this country and it's about time we shed some light on these socialist democrats who will stop at nothing to regain or retain power.

With advocates like you and many others, this country will be once again what our fore fathers had in mind when they drafted the 4 most powerful documents ever written.

Thanks John for all you do

Mike

[mcenedo]

First things first. It is a huge, uphill battle to run for Congress. No reason to think about anything beyond that.

John / Billybob 22 posted on 11/13/2003 9:59 PM EST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join.

If "emmy winning comedy writer" Al Franken can consider his book tour the obvious clamor, for him, to be Senator from some liberal midwestern state, you can surely aspire to be unanimous President of the USA, UN and EU (for good measure).

I mean, if AH- nuld could do it, why not me? (Franken must be rationalizing.)

What Franken doesn't realize is that he compares more favorably with AH-nuld physically than intellecually.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Isn't the practice of letting a single senator place and keep a 'hold' on a judicial appointment even more unconstitutional or can holds be overturned by less than 60 senators?

[Congressman Billybob]

Individual "holds" placed by Senators are temporary, not permanent. No Senator can actually block any piece of legislation, or any appointment, by the use of a "hold."

I agree that "holds" are a negative practice, especially when used anonymously. But I doubt that any court challenge to them would succeed, for two reasons: First, they are too minor, and second, they are a matter of internal Senate procedures under their Rules.

John / Billybob

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

[GeorgeWashington777]

Bump!

[drlevy88]

If the Senate wants to, it can change its own rules and eliminate the filibuster altogether.

They should at least cut out the filibuster in the case of appointments.

[Ferndina]

I must say that I was very disappointed in the senior senator from Texas, Kay Hutchinson, where she said that the president has a constitutional right to " appoint " judges. The demoncrats jumped on that slip immediately and in my opinion embarrassed us. I demand an up or down vote!

[Gritty]

my wife said with great accuracy, before going off to bed, “Anyone who wants to watch that is deeply warped.”

Great article!

However, I must vote with your wife. I went to bed rather than stay up with the chance to watch the likes of Chuck Schumer at 2 AM. Besides, my wife already knows I am warped so I didn't need to prove it!

[Mother Mary]

Thanks, Congressman. Love your Clarity. I was annoyed/amused by the Dem's circular reasoning about these judges being so far OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM. When everyone knows that a majority of current senators stand ready to vote to approve the nominee, the Dem's must convince all of us that the senate majority itself is OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM. So the Dem's are here to protect all of us from the dangerous results of having an OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM (OOTM) judge, nominated by an OOTM president, and approved by the votes of an OOTM majority of senators, to the detriment of "THE REAL AMERICAN MAINSTREAM" of the DEMOCRAT MINORITY.

[Mo1]

BTT

[thoughtomator]

What needs to be made clear is that the Democrats are deliberately creating a Constitutional crisis.

[firewalk]

.

[dixie sass]

Babysitting now, so am pinging myself to your thread for later.