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.
Oh, this is too funny. The right small government crowd looking for validation from Alexander Hamilton. Now that's a hoot.
By the way, Alexander Hamilton while one of my favorite delegates to the constitutional convention was never President, on the Supreme Court or a member of the Senate and was as much a political expedient as any contemporary politician.
But be that as it may, there is no contradiction between Hamilton, the Constitution or Obama, The President hasn't demanded that the Senate confirm Judge Garland but that it get on with its constitutional duty of advising and consenting or dissenting if that be its judgement based upon the merits of the nominee.
Last edited by TheWiseWino; 03-20-2016 at 02:54 PM..
Oh, this is too funny. The right small government crowd looking for validation from Alexander Hamilton. Now that's a hoot.
By the way, Alexander Hamilton while one of my favorite delegates to the constitutional convention was never President, on the Supreme Court or a member of the Senate and was as much a political expedient as any contemporary politician.
But be that as it may, there is no contradiction between Hamilton, the Constitution or Obama, The President hasn't demanded that the Senate confirm Judge Garland but that it get on with its constitutional duty of advising and consenting or dissenting if that be its judgement based upon the merits of the nominee.
Darn! I was just going to say 'lets dig him up', but now I see it wouldn't matter, because it was just his opinion!
But be that as it may, there is no contradiction between Hamilton, the Constitution or Obama, The President hasn't demanded that the Senate confirm Judge Garland but that it get on with its constitutional duty of advising and consenting or dissenting if that be its judgement based upon the merits of the nominee.
I guess you really didn't understand (if you even read) the article. But I'm not surprised.
The point is, they do not have to even consider his nomination.
Darn! I was just going to say 'lets dig him up', but now I see it wouldn't matter, because it was just his opinion!
Actually it is more interesting than just an opinion. Hamilton offered a proposal at the constitutional convention that the country would be governed by a president for life. Needless to say the idea wasn't well received by the other delegates and Hamilton left the convention soon after and wouldn't return except for one day until two months later only to sign the final draft. So, in contributing to the Federalist papers, Hamilton was arguing for a final document that he had not helped to finalized, hadn't been present during the debated and discussion and essentially didn't agree with but thought that no matter how flawed it was better than the government that the nation had. To put in bluntly, the Federalist papers, as excellent as they are, are also the first example of legislative spin as the Hamilton, Jay, and Madison tried to sell the country on the the Constitution.
Oh, this is too funny. The right small government crowd looking for validation from Alexander Hamilton. Now that's a hoot.
By the way, Alexander Hamilton while one of my favorite delegates to the constitutional convention was never President, on the Supreme Court or a member of the Senate and was as much a political expedient as any contemporary politician.
But be that as it may, there is no contradiction between Hamilton, the Constitution or Obama, The President hasn't demanded that the Senate confirm Judge Garland but that it get on with its constitutional duty of advising and consenting or dissenting if that be its judgement based upon the merits of the nominee.
Yup. Hamilton was wrong about a lot of things.
Including a doubt that Aaron Burr, a General, couldn't shoot straight or lacked the courage to kill such a big shot. That was Hamilton's worst, and last, big mistake.
I have no doubt that if alive, he would be busy putting a stout walking stick to the Senate majority leader and his bunch of derelicts right now. And he would have called on Burr to come help him out. Burr would have obliged gladly.
Including a doubt that Aaron Burr, a General, couldn't shoot straight or lacked the courage to kill such a big shot. That was Hamilton's worst, and last, big mistake.
That they think that the political debates this year are rancorous.
I read about this or something similar just the other day. When they were drafting the Constitution, there was a debate on whether or not to put a time limit or some wording in there forcing the Senate to consider a nominee. They voted not to include that in the Constitution for the reason of limiting the Presidents powers and not being able to force the Senate into voting if they thought the nominee was not worthy of a vote. Therefore, the current Senate is doing exactly what the Constitution was designed for the to do.
But they don't think the nominee is not worthy of a vote. They simply don't want this president to nominate anyone, regardless of worthiness.
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.
