Back To General Discussion

Hillary's Inelligiblity

  • dyfrin
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Joined: May 10, 2006
  • Posts: 499
  • Loc: WI
  • Status: Offline

Post December 15th, 2008, 11:51 am

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/12/03 ... 5731.shtml

In the end, this will go unaccounted for. Something recorded as another instance, but nothing done about it.

What does that mean to you? Is something like this best left alone, or should government be held to the law? Is the constitution worth following?
dyfrin.com
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2008
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post December 15th, 2008, 11:51 am

  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Joined: Dec 29, 2003
  • Posts: 5169
  • Loc: SC-USA
  • Status: Offline

Post December 15th, 2008, 12:08 pm

I'm not really sure what you mean by "unaccounted for". Did you read the whole article? They're not setting a precedence here. This has been done before. It seems to me this issue is bandied about every time a new cabinet is installed.

Anyway, IMO the US Constitution is very much worth following. However, the Constitution wasn't designed as a rigid mindless set of words. It is, rather, a framework that allows for just this type of maneuvering because the forefathers dealt with the same issues and need for flexibility that we do.
- dM
  • grinch2171
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Joined: Feb 11, 2004
  • Posts: 6741
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV
  • Status: Offline

Post December 15th, 2008, 12:08 pm

Who cares? It sounds like a stupid rule anyway. Oh my the Secretary of State's salary was raised so now you can't take that position. Seriously? But like the article stated, they have worked around this before and her husband was the last one to do it. It is a ridiculous non-story.
‎"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis
  • dyfrin
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Joined: May 10, 2006
  • Posts: 499
  • Loc: WI
  • Status: Offline

Post December 16th, 2008, 10:00 am

I meant unaccounted as there will be no real issue, it will be recorded that she is the 3rd to do so, and the law will not be addressed. Shouldn't it? If it needs to be "bended" why not modify it so it is fully legal then?

Certainly Hillary did not foresee herself as Secretary of State when voting on that. She was intending to run for President.

Does that make it right though? Not until the law is changed.

Grinch, you don't see any issue with lawmakers being able to pass laws that benefit themselves?

In summary, cases like these raise the question, which laws require compliance? Who is deciding that?

Are we expecting the government to play by the rules or modify the rules as sees fit in any situation?
dyfrin.com
  • jflynn
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Joined: Jun 23, 2006
  • Posts: 2304
  • Loc: Baker City, Oregon
  • Status: Offline

Post December 17th, 2008, 4:06 pm

the second paragraph free's her of this

Quote:
Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution says this: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”


notice the word in bold!!!!
Stand Up! STand Up and Shout!
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Joined: Dec 29, 2003
  • Posts: 5169
  • Loc: SC-USA
  • Status: Offline

Post December 17th, 2008, 6:47 pm

Aha! Mrs. Clinton has a workaround. LOL.
- dM
  • dyfrin
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Joined: May 10, 2006
  • Posts: 499
  • Loc: WI
  • Status: Offline

Post December 29th, 2008, 10:10 am

Lol
I guess so!
dyfrin.com
  • Bogey
  • Bogey
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Joined: Jul 14, 2005
  • Posts: 8211
  • Loc: USA
  • Status: Offline

Post December 29th, 2008, 5:14 pm

jflynn wrote:
the second paragraph free's her of this

Quote:
Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution says this: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”


notice the word in bold!!!!

*gasp* sexist!!!

lol just kidding

It seems that some laws come with counter-laws or work-a-rounds :roll:
"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" Matthew 3:8

Page 1 of 1

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 8 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 2011 Unmelted, LLC. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.