Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Theorist
#151 Old 5th Jan 2009 at 6:36 PM
Quote:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Quote: Originally posted by banshee
First, there was no 'election'. Second, Powell v McCormack limits the 'qualifications'. Which leaves 'returns'. In this case the 'return' would be the report of the appointment (i.e., the certification by the Illinois Secretary of State). Once the certification is issued, Burris' appointment is legal and the report of the appointment cannot be judged as illegal by the Senate just because they want to. .


You are reading those as one complete idea, but they are not. They are all separate ideas contained within the same section. being the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members are three distinct powers, not tied in to each other. It is a list of separate powers, not a single power with multiple parts. Therefore, that it starts with Judges of Elections is irrelevant. This language is different than it is in A1S3, "when elected", which is clearly part of the bigger idea of qualifications. Again, Powell V. McCormack only applies to duely elected members, Burris was never elected. He hasn't even been certified by the Illinois SecState, which is required by Illinois state law. If the Ill SOS doesn't certify it, and he has vowed not to, the US Senate cannot legally seat him, even if they wanted to. It isn't even a Constitutional issue until that happens. Right now it is 100% completely a state issue, until such a time as the Illinois Secretary of State certifies him.

Quote: Originally posted by banshee
What you're suggesting is in opposition to the purpose of the Constitution, which is to limit the powers of the federal government. You're correct that the 10th Amendment specifically gives the States the powers that are not specified as belonging to the federal government but that means that anything not specified as being a power of Congress can never be a power of Congress. They can't just infer powers for themselves when they want them and they certainly cannot reserve any rights that haven't been spelled out.


The US Senate is not infering powers for themselves out of thin air, the Constitution clearly gives them power over their own House. They wouldn't simply be making it up. It comes down to interpretation of the Constitution, which is debateable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Advertisement
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#152 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 3:34 PM
Default Obama just can't help but to lie!
More proof of how close Obama and Blago were are now coming out in light of this whole mess!

Letter signed by Obama on Dec. 3rd, 2008

Note several parts of it please;

1. "Thank you for meeting with me on Tuesday in Philadelphia. Vice President-elect Joe Biden and I were pleased with the open discussion."

2. "As we discussed, I would appreciate any advice you can provide to me and my team on the biggest roadblocks to states in moving forward in ‘getting ready to go' projects started quickly."

3. "In addition, I welcome any advice you can provide me and my team on revitalizing and reinvigorating the state-federal partnership. I want to make it a priority of my Administration to work closely with you."

4. "I look forward to working with you and hitting the ground running on January 20th."


Now remember, Obama had no contact with Blago, but in a letter he sent him, he sure as hell looks forward to working closely with him on many projects.

And one more that was just released.

Letter signed by Jarrett and Podesta

Note in it'

"On behalf of President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden we want you to know of our strong interest in working with you in the months to come. As you may know we have formed a Presidential Transition Team so that the new Administration will be prepared to confront the extraordinary challenges facing our country. Your leadership and experience will be invaluable in this effort and we hope you will not hesitate to share your insights during this process."

As well as informing Blago about the forming of two offices to enhance information sharing.

Now as Obama lied, they had limited contact with Blago's office or him directly. But these letters show otherwise.

Now these two letters raise more disturbing questions. Why did President-elect Obama not release this letter? These were released thanks to Blago. It shows that they did in fact have contact and was setting up departments to work together. And it leave that question, what else is he hiding?

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Theorist
#153 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 3:41 PM
So much for the Obamaniacs trying to parse Obama's words on this. I can't wait to hear the excuses as to how it is possible Obama didn't lie about meeting or talking with Blagojevich...I am sure someone will try to claim that Blagojevich forged the documents or some nonsense...GREAT WORK Nick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
#154 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 3:43 PM
Is this in reference to the meeting he had with all the Governors? I would bet that Palin and all the other Governors received the same letter, stretch much!
Lab Assistant
#155 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 5:39 PM
Ok, I have a question and I may as well post it here because the idea of making a new thread devoted to just this question when there is already a relevant thread is just stupid.

This is posed to anyone who wants to answer, doesn't matter what political party you are affiliated with nor does it even matter if you are just a bystander of American politics like I am. Do you consider this a huge scandal in the history of scandals which have plagued the American political arena for years? Be honest. Is this a huge thing?

As an abovementioned bystander, I really don't see the big deal. I mean, I get that some people feel like Obama has lied but I was always under the impression that deception was the way of life for all politicians and governments. Those who are honest do not last. "How do you know a politician is lying?" "Their lips are moving."

"I am a fly in the ointment, I am a whisper in the shadows. I am also an old, old woman. More than that you need not know."
Lab Assistant
#156 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 5:44 PM
Night Revenant....great question..
I have been reading through this thread and I am really starting to realize that people are debateing and or arguing just to do so....at least thats how it is coming across to me...some people will never be satisfied with Americas vote and will continue to pick apart his every flippin move....so I find the whole thing utterly stupid and a waste of time....Blago is a media whore plain and simple...the whole thing is dumb and a waste of time....IMO..our government is full of "scandals"...I personally don't think Obama is lying, he is too smart for that....omitting information that is not necessary and blatantly lying are too different things.....but I am thinking maybe a couple individuals here need to personally go to Washington and make their case....:P
Theorist
#157 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 6:08 PM
I have already addressed the strength of the scandal in a previous post, but to sum up, this is relatively minor, so why did Obama find it so difficult to tell the truth about something that wouldn't have hurt him in the slightest? That is the point, actually...if he is willing to lie about something so seemingly trivial (not that attempted bribery is trivial, but rather Obama's lack of involvement in the scheme) what else is he going to lie about? If he lies about stuff that isn't going to hurt him if he told the truth about it, he is definitely going to lie about things that will hurt him if he told the truth about it. What I have been arguing is that there is a pattern of dishonesty with Barack Obama, with his past associations, etc, where he first claims no involvement whatsoever, and then, as the truth becomes known, slowly adjusts his story to fit the present, that it will be hard to trust him with anything he says. My complaint isn't that he was involved in some bribery scandal, because, all evidence points to him NOT participating. However, if you know you have nothing to fear from the truth, as Obama would have in this case, WHY IN THE BLUE HELL would you then lie about it? If the truth shall set you free, as they say, why intentionally keep yourself locked up? Why lie when the truth doesn't hurt you? We have seen this chronic lying before, in our 41st President, and his lying almost got him removed from office.

**edit** Just as an update, the US Senate has made good on its threat to refuse to seat Burris, citing the fact that he was never certified by the Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, as required by Illinois state law. As long as White refuses to certify Burris, he isn't even the legal appointee to fill Obama's seat, and there is no Constitutional issue whatsoever. Until he is certified, it is 100% an Illinois state issue. The US Senate might actually have gotten in trouble had they seated Burris, come to think of it. Since he isn't certified by his state, as Illinois state law requires, the Senate may not have legally been allowed to seat him at all...This will be interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
#158 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 6:35 PM
Again, I would like for you to quote where he lied. Not because you say he lied mean that he lied. Amish Nick have being trying to the utmost to prove Obama lied without quoting the lie, and instead posting spins that would have probably work three years ago, but people have wised up to that kind of thing and it don't work anymore.I am more than open to be convince that he lied, for as you say, it is much to do about nothing, unless of course he is being accused falsely, then the Devil is in the details.
Forum Resident
#159 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 8:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Davious
but to sum up, this is relatively minor,


Yup, that sums it up.
Theorist
#160 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 8:37 PM
Of course, if there had been any hint that Obama was caught up in the bribery scheme, this would have been a very big scandal, possibly derailing his Presidency before it ever got started. What myself and other Conservatives have been wondering is, why lie about something so minor at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#161 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 8:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
You are reading those as one complete idea, but they are not. They are all separate ideas contained within the same section. being the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members are three distinct powers, not tied in to each other. It is a list of separate powers, not a single power with multiple parts. Therefore, that it starts with Judges of Elections is irrelevant. This language is different than it is in A1S3, "when elected", which is clearly part of the bigger idea of qualifications. Again, Powell V. McCormack only applies to duely elected members, Burris was never elected. He hasn't even been certified by the Illinois SecState, which is required by Illinois state law. If the Ill SOS doesn't certify it, and he has vowed not to, the US Senate cannot legally seat him, even if they wanted to. It isn't even a Constitutional issue until that happens. Right now it is 100% completely a state issue, until such a time as the Illinois Secretary of State certifies him.
They are three parts of a whole but each is to be judged separately, which is how I laid it out. The first two can be dismissed as irrelevant in this case and as I said, the only thing the Senate could judge would be to the 'return'. Burris has filed a mandamus action with the Illinois Supreme Court and it's expected that they will force the Sec. of State to certify his appointment. Once that's done, the 'return' is valid/legal and the Senate will have to seat him or run afoul of the Constitution.

SCOTUS has already determined what the qualifications are and 'when elected' wasn't one of them. 'When elected' is not a qualification; It is a descriptor for the person whom the three qualifications spelled out in A1S3 and referred to in A1S5 apply.

Article 1 Section 3 originally read:
Quote:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Nothing there about being elections. It's obvious from a plain reading of the text that when the phrase 'when elected' is used later in A1S3 it refers to the person who has been chosen. The 17th Amendment simply changed how the person was chosen and once any Senator is chosen (whether through a popular election or appointment) they have been 'elected'.

Quote: Originally posted by davious
The US Senate is not infering powers for themselves out of thin air, the Constitution clearly gives them power over their own House. They wouldn't simply be making it up. It comes down to interpretation of the Constitution, which is debateable.
It allows them to determine their own rules but beyond what is laid out in A1S5 and the specific qualifications in A1S3, it doesn't allow them to decide who gets to join. Being able to 'Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications' is not the same as deciding whether or not to abide by Robert's Rules of Order.

A1S5 doesn't allow the Senate to judge appointments. If the authors of the 17th amendment had wanted to include appointments, they could have in plain language. But what if the omission was purposeful? Allowing the Senate to review appointments would be tantamount to allowing them to choose their membership. What if the appointee is from the opposite party of the party in control of the Senate? What happens if you have a Republican controlled Senate and a pro-choice Republican is appointed by his Governor? Using that appointee's views on abortion as the litmus would be unconstitutional under Powell v McCormack, but say the appointee contributed money to the Governor's campaign or even actively campaigned for said Governor. Suddenly it would be labeled as a quid-pro-quo and the Senate could call the appointment corrupt. Or if the Democrats controlled the Senate and someone like Lieberman was appointed after all that he'd done to piss of the other Dems in the Senate? You could claim almost any connection or support would be grounds for rejecting the appointment and with the political machines as incestuous as they are there's always going to be political connection between the appointer and the appointee.
Field Researcher
#162 Old 7th Jan 2009 at 7:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by urisStar
Is this in reference to the meeting he had with all the Governors? I would bet that Palin and all the other Governors received the same letter, stretch much!


These look to me like the kind of your-name-here pro-forma form letters everyone gets regarding certain things; the first is obviously a thank you letter to (Governor's-name-here) for attending the governor's conference, and the second looks like a general 'the transition team wants your ideas, (insert name here)!' announcement.

So yeah, more hay over nothing.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#163 Old 7th Jan 2009 at 2:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
**edit** Just as an update, the US Senate has made good on its threat to refuse to seat Burris, citing the fact that he was never certified by the Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, as required by Illinois state law. As long as White refuses to certify Burris, he isn't even the legal appointee to fill Obama's seat, and there is no Constitutional issue whatsoever. Until he is certified, it is 100% an Illinois state issue. The US Senate might actually have gotten in trouble had they seated Burris, come to think of it. Since he isn't certified by his state, as Illinois state law requires, the Senate may not have legally been allowed to seat him at all...This will be interesting.
Don't hold your breath on this too long.

The Dems promised and made a big point that they would never allow Burris to be seated. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) has come out in strong defence of Burris and is stating that he must be sat.

Quote:
"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators.


Quote:
"If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America," the California Democrat said. "Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been attorney general, he has been controller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled."


And now the cracks in the DNC's opposition to Burris and holding true to their promises that they would never allow any pick by Blago to be seated is showing cracks and they may accept him and seat him.


Quote:
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are looking for ways to defuse the standoff that has denied Roland Burris the vacated Illinois seat of President-elect Barack Obama.

Burris' paperwork was rejected at the opening of the 111th Congress, with Democratic leaders loath to accept any Senate nominee sent by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But Burris is scheduled to meet Wednesday with the Senate's top two Democrats — Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and assistant leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.


Many political experts are saying that after meeting with Reid and Durbin, that they very will likely seat Burris and try and save face in what is growing to be a very ugly mess for them. One for not holding true to promises to not seat Burris, and the other for opposing the only Black Senator that would be serving. Race has entered this whole mess.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Theorist
#164 Old 7th Jan 2009 at 8:11 PM
If they seat Burris without the certification of the Illinois Secretary of State, I hope the GOP Senators protest. Burris cannot be seated legally until that happens, because those are the rules laid out by the State of Illinois, and the State of Illinois has jurisdiction, until Burris is certified.

However, watching the Democrats fight amongst themselves is amusing regardless of how this ends up. Either way, they end up looking bad. If they seat Burris, Harry Reid looks like the complete dumbass he is, if they don't seat Burris, they aren't as strong a majority as they otherwise would be. This is one of those grab the bowl of popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show kind of things for the Republicans.

**update**

The Illinois Legislature voted 114-1 to impeach Blagojevich, which means all Harry Reid has to do is stall for time. If he can get away with not seating Burris for a little while longer, it becomes a moot point, because as soon as Blagojevich is removed, Burris loses his claim, as he still has never been certified by the Illinois SecState. He would no longer be the selection, and it would be up to the Lt. Governor to reappoint someone for the position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
 
Page 7 of 7
Back to top