Posted on 06/17/2013 7:59:40 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said if he were president, he would have intervened in Syria much sooner than President Obama did to identify the “reasonable” rebels opposed to the regime of President Basher Assad.
“It behooved us to kind of identify whether there was any elements there within Syria fighting against Assad that we could work with—reasonable people that wouldn’t carry out human rights violations and could be part of building a new Syria. We failed to do that,” Rubio told Jonathan Karl on ABC News’ “This Week.” …
Obama announced this week that the Assad regime had crossed the “red line” and the U.S. now has conclusive evidence the country used chemical weapons. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
ANOTHER good reason NOT to vote for Rubio. As if we didn’t have enough already.
LOL, where do I go with that...
He fails the test of Conservatism on this one topic alone.
What good is it if he believes as I do on everything else. He’s about to hand the Democrats perpetual power.
We’ll see how his other beliefs prosper then.
Conjecture and opinion is believing that there are other remedies outside of those provided in the Constitution. The Constitution gives the method of removing someone from office. You claim that since it doesn't specifically exclude other methods then those are left to the states. That is just not so. It's like saying the Constitution specifies the manner in which a state may be admitted, but since it doesn't specifically say that a territory cannot become a state merely by ratifying the Constitution and sending representatives to Congress then such a method is acceptable. It isn't.
The 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states unless prohibited. The Constitution says that the ability to remove a sitting official is a power reserved to the United States, as outlined in the impeachment process. Therefore it is not a power allowed to the states.
The Constitution specifies how elected officials may be removed.
Recall is not listed.
In 224 years, there has never been a recall of an elected federal official -- for a reason.
Again, “not listed” does not mean disallowed. The Constitution is formatted as “negative liberties” for a reason. There have not been recalls due to being disallowed by the Constitution; there have been no recalls due to no calls for recall.
Well, I "hate" to say it, but Romney is better than this guy.
The Constitution is not a be-all-and-end-all grant of absolute authority to the USA’s central government. Therefore, there are other remedies, when they do not contradict the federal law (per the Supremacy Clause), and recall does not do so since it does not act against the federal government’s authority in this vein.
Conjecture and opinion is believing that there are other remedies outside of those provided in the Constitution
Bottom line is that recall election is not the same thing as impeachment, and since the federal law does not explicitly prohibit it, it is simply not prohibited.
The 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states unless prohibited. The Constitution says that the ability to remove a sitting official is a power reserved to the United States, as outlined in the impeachment process. Therefore it is not a power allowed to the states
Like I said some days ago, when elected representatives go to DC they must get a lobotomy before entering the capitol.
5.56mm
Can a state recall a president then? Say, for example, it's 2003 and the people of New Hampshire are fed up with George Bush. So they launch a recall election and it passes, and the result is they take their 4 electoral votes away from Bush. At that point Bush does not have the requisite 268 electoral votes. Does that throw the election to the Congress 3 years after the fact? Nothing in the Constitution specifically says that New Hampsire can't do that. So by your definition then shouldn't it be possible?
Bottom line is that recall election is not the same thing as impeachment, and since the federal law does not explicitly prohibit it, it is simply not prohibited.
I'm sorry, you are simply wrong in that.
Incidentally, the Tenth Amendment says that such rights are reserved to the states or the people.
Unless it is a power delegated to the United States. And impeachment is. Impechment is the only constitutionally-approved way of removing a sitting official from office.
And as for Rubio, I ackowledged already that Florida has no recall process in its set of state laws. Either way, the people could initiate it of their own volition.
They can. In 2016 when he is up for re-election. Voting him out of office in the general election is the only recall option open to them. Or any other state.
Rubio is proving that he’s a slick talker .... but basically an idiot. Hopefully in his next job he’ll be selling used cars.
Agree... there is no good side. There are no “moderates we can work with” there. Our nation’s best interest is for them to all kill each other..... quickly. Whatever we can do to help that along is what is best for our country.
How do you distinguish between "reasonable" and un-reasonable in a place where people cannibalize their enemies, eating their organs, and on camera at that ?
The "reasonable" ones are the ones who don't do it on camera without their faces being obscured in the photo lab.
Go ahead and try to recall Rubio.
Never mind that the Constitution doesn't provide for recall of a U.S. Senator.
But you know better...
Good luck.
Almost 2 years to the day since one of my last posts and yes the Neo-Cons still contoll the GOP. Some things never change.
I agree, and great to see you here.
Thanks for the note.
Hope to see many more.
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.