or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton on Letterman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clinton on Letterman - Page 2

post #41 of 67
scott, you are pedaling the wrong way, since the issue of succession is far more relevant than the electoral college.

Stephen W. Stathis, The Twenty-Second Amendment: A Practical Remedy or Partisan Maneuver? Constitutional Commentary, vol. 7, winter 1990, pp. 76-77.
post #42 of 67
Far more relevant than the body that actually elects the president?
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Far more relevant than the body that actually elects the president?

Regarding the issue of the 22nd amendment, absolutely.
post #44 of 67
Whatever troll. You saw my post. Tried to troll me. Didn't bother to read the thread and all my comments. So now you're trying to spin spin spin about something that will basically never come up in the history of our country. Better trolling next time.
post #45 of 67


And learn to handle being wrong a little more maturely than "STFU" and "TROL!!" It's just a discussion about some obscure constitutional issue. It's not worth those tears.
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Next time try reading the post. The 12th ammendment clearly does not apply.

Next time try being civil. It doesn't apply in your opinion. Last time I checked, your opinion did not comprise that of a independent Contitutional lawyer or court of law.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
It doesn't apply in your opinion.

No, it doesn't apply period. The real debate, centered around the "spirit" argument, is whether the 22nd should be read to exclude non-elected terms. Try reading up on it, I've already provided you with two sources, one detailing the history of the amendment and one from...
Quote:
your opinion did not comprise that of a independent Contitutional lawyer

um... one source I cited was Michael C. Dorf: Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law (2004-present); Professor of Law (1997-2004); Vice-Dean (1998-2002);_ Associate Professor (1995-1997). Courses and Seminars in Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Interpretation, Comparative Constitutional Law,_Pragmatism, and_Problem-Solving Courts.

I find it interesting to no end that you guys so blatantly make stuff up when the argument turns against your favor.
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Next time try being civil. It doesn't apply in your opinion. Last time I checked, your opinion did not comprise that of a independent Contitutional lawyer or court of law.


You're telling someone else to be civil?

You're the only one on this forum to ever use a four letter explitive or body part description for a response to me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You're telling someone else to be civil?

You're the only one on this forum to ever use a four letter explitive or body part description for a response to me.

hey, im pretty sure ive used a four letter explitive in response to you!
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
hey, im pretty sure ive used a four letter explitive in response to you!


It must have been privately.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 67
Notwithstanding the technical details of these amendments, and out of curiosity, would the impeachment of Cliinton have any bearing on running for office in the future?
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Notwithstanding the technical details of these amendments, and out of curiosity, would the impeachment of Cliinton have any bearing on running for office in the future?


I don't think so. I mean, Marion Berry (sp?) was re-elected to mayor of Washington DC after being arrested and convicted on crack charges.

Heck, you should see what we have to put up with just with local representatives in CT. A town selectman got nailed playing with children, got convicted, and the town ended up paying the guy $75K to quit because for some reason, they couldn't fire him.

Maybe you've seen the names Joe Ganim, Phil Giordanno and John Rowland in the news over the past couple of years? All CT scum.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Notwithstanding the technical details of these amendments, and out of curiosity, would the impeachment of Cliinton have any bearing on running for office in the future?

No, especially considering the Senate didn't convict him.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No, especially considering the Senate didn't convict him.

Maybe that's the key word: "convict". Is an impeachment really a conviction? Or is it something special that makes a true blemish on a politician - kind of like that censure thing they were originally going to do to Clinton?
post #55 of 67
Politically, the impeachment is an albatross, whether it was silly or not.
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Maybe that's the key word: "convict". Is an impeachment really a conviction? Or is it something special that makes a true blemish on a politician - kind of like that censure thing they were originally going to do to Clinton?

My understanding (and I'm by no means anywhere near an expert on all of this) is that impeachment is not unlike a grand jury. It's just a formal accusation that an impeachable offense has been committed. The Senate is where the actual trial takes place.

Here's CNN's primer on all of this

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
And the Senate is either part of the Executive branch or not included in the equation?

Huh? I don't understand your point. Two out of three is a majority. The third would be politically threatened by an influence of the first over the second. And the Senate is part of Congress, last I checked.
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Huh? I don't understand your point. Two out of three is a majority. The third would be politically threatened by an influence of the first over the second. And the Senate is part of Congress, last I checked.

Sigh. Why do I bother?


Point being that the 22nd amendment does not apply to the Senate because it's not part of the executive branch. Unless you think it is.

Thank god there are only three branches of government.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, it doesn't apply period. The real debate, centered around the "spirit" argument, is whether the 22nd should be read to exclude non-elected terms. Try reading up on it, I've already provided you with two sources, one detailing the history of the amendment and one from...

um... one source I cited was Michael C. Dorf: Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law (2004-present); Professor of Law (1997-2004); Vice-Dean (1998-2002);_ Associate Professor (1995-1997). Courses and Seminars in Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Interpretation, Comparative Constitutional Law,_Pragmatism, and_Problem-Solving Courts.

I find it interesting to no end that you guys so blatantly make stuff up when the argument turns against your favor.

You cited ONE source! ONE! This particular source is associated with none other than the very liberal Lawrence Tribe. And, he's addressing the issue of a Clinton-Gore (read: Democratic) ticket. Hmmm.

If Clinton tried this, it would spark a major constitutional debate. It could go his way, but there IS an argument to be made that the courts could rule against him. It's all about he phrase "constitutionally inelegible" in the 12th amendment whether or not this would apply. In other words, does Clinton's being disqalified to run for POTUS again make him "constitionally ineligible?". There's at least a case that it does.

But this won't stop you from hurling another insult. Once you have spoken, the debate is over. You are the unltimate authority on EVERYTHING. You cannot even fathom the possibility that a court of law could rule that Clinton couldn't run. Typical.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Sigh. Why do I bother?


Point being that the 22nd amendment does not apply to the Senate because it's not part of the executive branch. Unless you think it is.

Thank god there are only three branches of government.

Jeezus! Who ever said the 22nd Amendment applies to the Senate? I sure as hell didn't. READ CAREFULLY:

Congress (the Senate and the House -- branch 1) didn't want the Executive (the President -- branch 2) to have too much influence over the Judiciary (The Supreme Court -- branch 3). So they passed the 22nd amendment (that's one of the powers of Congress).

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND????
post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You cited ONE source! ONE!

What number lie are you on for this thread? For future reference, next time you feel the impulse to lie, try not to make it so obvious or about things so small (especially considering you've now lied at least twice, possibly more, wrt to these sources). Afterall, the very first post on this page exposes you ... Again. And again. and again... I understand it's hard for you to stick to the facts when defending indefensible beliefs, but at least try being at least slightly clever when introducing deceit.

We really need something in the posting guidlines against blatant lying. Certain posters do it far too often and make it near impossible to have anything close to a normal discussion.
post #62 of 67
Why shouldn't blind Bush worship extend to adopting the administration's very tactics?
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You cited ONE source! ONE! This particular source is associated with none other than the very liberal Lawrence Tribe. And, he's addressing the issue of a Clinton-Gore (read: Democratic) ticket. Hmmm.

If Clinton tried this, it would spark a major constitutional debate. It could go his way, but there IS an argument to be made that the courts could rule against him. It's all about he phrase "constitutionally inelegible" in the 12th amendment whether or not this would apply. In other words, does Clinton's being disqalified to run for POTUS again make him "constitionally ineligible?". There's at least a case that it does.

But this won't stop you from hurling another insult. Once you have spoken, the debate is over. You are the unltimate authority on EVERYTHING. You cannot even fathom the possibility that a court of law could rule that Clinton couldn't run. Typical.


Man you're getting all wound up over something that probably would never happen!

Do I sense an ego here?

And yes Giant has proven time and again that he's very intelligent and well informed.

While he might not be the ultimate authority on everything he really knows how to research and he's closer to that than either one of us.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #64 of 67
Thanks, jimmac, but I know I'm not very smart since not only did I post in FC and AO, but now I'm even posting in PO. As for researching, I find it fun and I work in the dead center of a major warehouse of information. I get paid to know how to orgainze, access, analyze and disseminate information.

BTW, I just noticed this:
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You cannot even fathom the possibility that a court of law could rule that Clinton couldn't run. Typical.

Is that so?
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
...even though it's not explicitly prohibited in the constitution, I would hope that the supreme court would rule against a former two-term president coming in as vice president.

SDW, I don't know what planet expelled you, but I feel their pain.
post #65 of 67
Ooooooh, feel the burn!

giant: 1

SDW2001: 0
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
Is it possible for him to run again?

He was so self obsessed, jesus.
post #67 of 67
For people that don't soon tire of listening to Clinton can watch the interview he did last night for the CBC. Go to http://www.cbc.ca/national/ and click the link for the Real stram. Interview starts about 20 minutes into the broadcast.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton on Letterman