Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I were Obama I would nominate a moderate Republican (like from one of the more liberal Federal Circuit Courts or the Appellate Courts) and watch the GOP go bats**t crazy!!!
There goes any credibility you may have had as a defender of the constitution. The constitution says the president nominates Supreme Court Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate -- not the Senate gets to hold off otherwise qualified nominees until they get one that fits their ideological mold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
What about the word "consent" confuses you?
Well, first of all, before Scalia's body was cold, Mitch McConnell made this statement:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
It should be obvious he is saying "do not consent" to anyone Obama nominates. In other words, even if Pres Obama chooses the best person to serve our country, it doesn't matter. So I now ask you the same question you asked MTAtech. What about this confuses you?
Depends on one's point of view. Those who have an opposing view might think people with your point of view never put the country first. Having the particular opinion you do doesn't make that opinion correct.
No, the Supreme Court ruled a few terms ago that the House and Senate are only in recess when those institutions say they are in recess, which you be certain they will not be doing again for the remainder of Obama's term. Obama will not be able to make any more recess appointments.
I do believe most of the worshipers couldn't detect bad taste if it landed in their mouths.
Seriously? We were watching tv when the news came in. His body wasn't even cold before republicans were saying that they would block any nominee of obama's. So much for them mourning. Obama didn't speak until hours later. So why is it in bad taste for him.
What's the fuss over "right wing" versus "left wing" justices?
Read the Declaration of Independence.
Americans are endowed with rights that government was instituted to secure. BUT. If one consents to be governed, those rights are WAIVED.
Proof?
MILITIA DUTY (from 1776 onward) - the obligation of ALL MALE CITIZENS (who qualify) to train, fight, and die, on command. Ergo, no citizen has an 'endowed' to life, liberty, etc. Only government privileges and immunities remain.
The assertion of CITIZENSHIP is akin to volunteering for a suicide mission. Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out: "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
Of course, if you withdrew consent, and were no longer a "person liable" then the government wouldn't "govern you."
. . .
“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
If you understand the Declaration -and- the compulsory duties of citizenship, you must come to the conclusion that citizenship must be a VOLUNTARY assertion of consent.
Either Americans are endowed at birth with unalienable rights that government was instituted to secure - OR -
Americans were born "U.S. citizens" with mandatory civic duties that waive endowed rights and liberties.
...
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc."
In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
.....
If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, it must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
...
Infants cannot give consent to be citizens, ergo, militia duty cannot be imposed at birth, nor can citizenship.
Republicans lie twice as much as Democrats. I know I've been reading them for a while now...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good to know.