He's still a nigger.

You're quite an observant one, aren't you?

Now, if his outsides somehow start to look like his insides we may have an interesting situation.

...Oh, wait. That happened to Michael Jackson in the 90's. Well, fuck that.

thats the only thing u could find out about obama disregarding the constitution? i mean, good job realizing that, i didnt know it, but most of the things he plans to do are unconstitutional.

Right i will start this off by saying i was, an still am, a Obama supporter.

That explains why your English is so poor.

i found the loop hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix

looks like what obama is doing is not illegal, he is just taking a page out of Richard M. Nixions play book. christ, not a good start.


an all you guys who called him a nigger, fuck you you fucking tools.


fuck you.

It hardly seems to be a loophole and it originated decades before Nixon. And the only relation to Nixon is that it allows for the president (Nixon or Obama) to assemble the cabinet that he wants and therefore preserves the separation of power. And the fix originated by congress and not by Nixon. Ask your fucking little professor if that act by the congress that allowed 'Nixon's executive separation of power' choice to serve is a violation of the constitution.

So your little professor is moaning like a bitch because this act that he erroneously perceives as an un-constitutional act is not all over the news?

Save a few of those "Fuck You"s for that bitch professor who should get a Big Fucking Fail in his effort to draw attention with his error in thinking that Taft and Nixon and Obama are violating the constitution by choosing whoever they think best to serve on their cabinet. And the congress too. He must think that a law passed by congress to allow a president his choice to serve on his cabinet is un-constitutional and all those voting aye are violating the constitution also.

What a dumbass he is. Has he expressed any thought on the denial of habeous corpus by Bush and his torturers that has been ruled a violation of the constitution by the sitting SCOTUS? WTF? Was it a slow day in Hick Town U?

It hardly seems to be a loophole

then what is it oh wise one?

and it originated decades before Nixon.And the only relation to Nixon is that it allows for the president (Nixon or Obama) to assemble the cabinet that he wants and therefore preserves the separation of power

the relation to nixon is he used the same ploy. carter an taft also used the hole to their advantage but apparently regan was denied. be that as it may, the ineligibility clause's loop hole (that of lowering the pay of the position) has been dubbed a "saxbe fix". hence my mention of nixon.

also the clause does limit the separation of powers because it does not allow a serving senator to become a supreme court justice, or secretary of defense, etc.

. And the fix originated by congress and not by Nixon. Ask your fucking little professor if that act by the congress that allowed 'Nixon's executive separation of power' choice to serve is a violation of the constitution.

nixon asked for it, an as you pointed out earlier it originated with taft.

i think my prof would answer that the constitution is sufficiently vague on the issue of what "emoluments" are to allow for a reinterpretation. he would also say that a historical precedent helps.

So your little professor is moaning like a bitch because this act that he erroneously perceives as an un-constitutional act is not all over the news?

not so much moaning like a bitch, but trying to help his class see the complexities of the current political reality.

Save a few of those "Fuck You"s for that bitch professor

i will use my fuck yous how ever i best see fit.

who should get a Big Fucking Fail in his effort to draw attention with his error in thinking that Taft and Nixon and Obama are violating the constitution by choosing whoever they think best to serve on their cabinet. And the congress too. He must think that a law passed by congress to allow a president his choice to serve on his cabinet is un-constitutional and all those voting aye are violating the constitution also.

technically speaking it is against the direct word of the constitution. even if there is a precedent for breaking it. and it looks like he did pretty well bringing it to my attention, an i brought it to your attention, an you sure as fuck latched on. so maybe he does not deserve a A, i would at least give him a C though. an C's get degrees.

also the law passed by congress would be a budget bill, lowering the pay of the secretary of state (or what ever position was in question) to the level of the senator(or whom ever was in questions) base pay. nothing unconstitutional about that.

What a dumbass he is. Has he expressed any thought on the denial of habeous corpus by Bush and his torturers that has been ruled a violation of the constitution by the sitting SCOTUS? WTF? Was it a slow day in Hick Town U?

you are not too bright either my little pointy headed friend. he has expressed much thought on president bush, from how he was elected to how he appointed his attorney generals, an a few other bits as well. we have talked about lots of things in his class, an though he is a bit tough on grading i think he might be one of my better professors i have had in the last 3 years. fuck you.


and how the hell did you know i went to hick town u?

an all you guys who called him a nigger, fuck you you fucking tools.


fuck you.

All right, all right.

"Half-nigger."

and how the hell did you know i went to hick town u?

Because of your inability to spell or spell check, capitalize, punctuate, and use effective grammar.

And your professor is obviously so worthless that he gets his lesson plans off the internet. And then tries to enhance the importance of an issue by making it seem important because he is using it in his class and criticizes the media because they are ignoring it and is reporting about the first pet.

Care to ask your professor if the war in Iraq was declared according to the constitution? Or ask if President Bush violated the Constitution by waging war on Iraq without a declaration of war from congress.

This choice for Sec of State seems so unimportant.

Except at Hicktown U, right?

Because of your inability to spell or spell check, capitalize, punctuate, and use effective grammar.

i dont use proper grammar online, so sue me

And your professor is obviously so worthless that he gets his lesson plans off the internet. And then tries to enhance the importance of an issue by making it seem important because he is using it in his class and criticizes the media because they are ignoring it and is reporting about the first pet.

i dont think he gets his plans from the internet, he probably bases them on his text book. also he was not trying to make this issue seem more important than it actually was. it was mentioned towards the end of class an was barely discussed, it was a bonus question for a upcoming test.

Care to ask your professor if the war in Iraq was declared according to the constitution? Or ask if President Bush violated the Constitution by waging war on Iraq without a declaration of war from congress.

we had lengthy discussions about all those topics an more.


This choice for Sec of State seems so unimportant.

Except at Hicktown U, right?

secretary of state is unimportant? right...

a double nigger.

http://www.postimage.org/gx1m6jds-353755f049865d5e81dc8dbe5e17822d.jpg

(x ' _ ' )

Only as it relates to an unconstitutional action by the president.

I fail to see a problem.

""no senator or representative shall, during the time he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the united states, which shall have been created, or the emolument whereof shall have been increased during such a time, an no person holding any office under the united states shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office"

A reminder that Obama isn't president yet, and despite all the furor over who his potential cabinet will be, they are at this point nothing more than choices, not appointments.

Once Obama is inaugurated, all Clinton has to do is resign her office and then accept the promised appointment when Obama makes it. Perfectly legal, yes? Leaves Obama the opportunity to screw her over, but that wouldn't serve him any good purpose in party unity.

But he's a gun-theiving baby-raping anti-Christ!

But he's a gun-theiving baby-raping anti-Christ!

It wouldn't be the USA if we didn't have an anti-Christ in charge.

That dumb nigger probably can't even read the constitution. :p It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. :(

It wouldn't be the USA if we didn't have an anti-Christ in charge.

It wasn't always this way: http://anotheruntoldstory.com/?page_id=57

What do you plan to do about it? Put them in a stranglehold and tell them you've got cat scratch fever?

People have been disregarding this law since it was enacted. Why? Because it's a dumb law. For example, look at John Quincy Adams' appointment of Henry Clay to Secretary of Defense. This is notable for two reasons: 1) Clay was the speaker of the House of Representatives and 2) although not relevant to this discussion (but very interesting)...

The election of 1828 ended up in virtually a tie. The Republican Party was coming out of the "Era Of Good Feelings" and had just run four men for president. No one man recieved a determinate percentage of the votes needed to secure the presidency. According to our Constitution, when this happens, the vote goes to the House of Representatives. Clay, at the time, was the Speaker of the House. Adams, who was closely tied with a fellow Republican, held a secret meeting to discuss the matter with Clay. Clay then managed to convince the House to vote Adams into the Presidency and Adams then appointed Clay Secretary of Defense. There were many mumbles among loyal Jacksonian Democrats about the "stolen election" of 1828. Fun stuff. History kicks ass.

Reclaim and Iehovah covered everything important about this. I just want to restate some things so that we don't get people having their eyes and minds clouded over by extremist party rhetoric.

That clause is intended to keep power blocks from forming. One could see a big problem if the President was still in Congress and all of his cabinet, too, especially if he and his cabinet were also the Supreme Court judges. By separating the powers but not separating the bodies, nothing can happen. It requires both. So, like Iehovah said, the standard for quite some time to avoid this is to appoint a current Senator who then resigns their position in Congress to take up a cabinet position. Caroline Kennedy is already being fingered to replace her and there is the huge hubbub about replacing Obama's seat and the corruption around that. The Constitution is still fine.

Reclaim and Iehovah covered everything important about this. I just want to restate some things so that we don't get people having their eyes and minds clouded over by extremist party rhetoric.

That clause is intended to keep power blocks from forming.... The Constitution is still fine.

Except it hasn't been since this first happened. The Federalist party in 1800 controlled the Presidency and the Judiciary and by introducing judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, completely changed the Constitution for eternity.....

Sure, the Constitution is fine- look at all the civil liberties we enjoy today such as a complete disrespect for the Bill of Rights and a monolithic expansion of a ruthless national government that only benefits lobbyists and private contractors.

Bush signs off on Clinton pay cut
Posted: 06:41 PM ET

From CNN Radio's Lisa Desjardins
Hillary Clinton's salary will drop to pre-2007 amount.
Hillary Clinton's salary will drop to pre-2007 amount.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Bush cleared the way Friday for Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state, signing a law that removes a potential constitutional barrier for the New York senator’s nomination by reducing her prospective pay as the nation’s top diplomat.

Congress voted in 2007 to raise the secretary of state’s salary by $4700. That move meant Clinton’s nomination was in conflict with Article I, section 6 of the Constitution, which prohibits members of Congress from raising the salary for a government job, then leaving the Capitol to fill the position themselves.

If she is confirmed, Clinton’s new salary will be $186,600 – less than the $191,300 now earned by current secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, but more than her current Senate salary of $169,300.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/19/bush-signs-off-on-clinton-pay-cut/

Obama Wants You To:
- Partake of a Mandatory Civilian Defense Force.
- Meet a Minimum Set of Hours depending on Your Age, for GOVERNMENT APPROVED community service.

Obama Obstructs:
- Free Flow of Information
- The Market from Recovery and will further make the Economy Worst

Promises Change, But Never Defined It. Let me define his change so you can see it. Obama thinks he can run your life by making you do community service. Obama thinks he can control your life by forcing you to enlist in some civilian military. So the change so far is loss of freedom to determine what you do and how you do it. Obama wants to obstruct the internet by restricting how many websites we are able to be exposed to with the help of internet based corporations. Obama wants more government intervention, when meanwhile for the past year all Government has done is get involved, making matters only worst. So from this half the change I can conclude is Obama wants us to grow increasingly reliant for information and economic support from the government.

So ultimately I can only conclude, humorously, that the change he is promising is more loss of liberties and more dependence on the state. Is that American? I think we wrote a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution because, we believed that a strong central government with too much power was a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, the change we are promised is exactly the undoing of The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Why did we bother fighting the wars we fought if the actions we are doing today effectively pisses all over our American History? Dont even think about Universal Healthcare in this economy and this guys desire to raise taxes.

Fuck the US constitution baby.

-Obama to Michelle.

^wtf Obama is a misspelled word? SUCK MA DICK.
.........^

and goj faja 89, change cannot be defined by any president. It was just a word used to get attention from the masses, don't take it seriously lolz.

I found a loophole: That clause says nothing about woman. All references are male, not female.

Do I win?

But he's a gun-theiving baby-raping anti-Christ!
This isn't really far off from the truth, especially with the legislation he had written up earlier this year with the assist of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee. There's actually a thread that has been started about this bill, and UN mandated gun ban isn't the only potential wrong to be done to the United States:

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2185126

Posters are right when they say this isn't the only disrespectful step Obama has made across the aged face of the Constitution. The fact that with appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of the State was done in the tread of Richard Nixon should be enough cause for concern when coupled with this bill.

His affiliation with the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) along with appoint Hillary (open member of the CFR) does not play well for the possibility of him spinning off Bill S.2433 as something that isn't leading globalization and diminishing our nation's sovereignty.

Not to mention, his endorsements from Goldman Sachs...

::sighs::

This is power hungry benevolence.

I dont expect to take it seriously, thats the things.. Its sarcasm... :)

Didn't read whole thread. All she has to do is resign before taking the cabinet position.

who coincidentally are both batshit insane, IMHO

When you make a statement like that you have to back it up with why.

When do we get to write a new one?

That shit's 200+ years old.

They get stale after a century and by 2 the mold begins to grow.

We need a more contemporaneous constitution.

Put the old one in a museum, right next to the Articles of Confederation.