# LoBiando Doesn't KNOW The Constitution...



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPTiTYDOQd8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]



Folks? It IS our Duty to grill these people. THEY are our employees...seems that some don't KNOW their JOB.

Go get them. Call them OUT.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

*ANY* Congresscritter that doesn't KNOW the Document should be voted the HELL OUT...and frankly I am an advocate of a rather extensive TEST of ALL Representatives that vye for office.

If they FAIL? Go look for employment elsewhere.


----------



## Thinman (Apr 8, 2010)

I'll bet 60% of the House of Representatives could not have answered the mans' questions.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

Thinman said:


> I'll bet 60% of the House of Representatives could not have answered the mans' questions.


 
I'd bet that you would be correct.

Since MANY of us are tested to hold a driver's licence to drive upon PUBLIC Roads? And have to pass tests of a myriad of Several occupations?

Id say it's TIME we DEMAND a TEST upon those *WE* Elect.


----------



## Thinman (Apr 8, 2010)

I agree.  They can't step on the floor until they have passed the test.  That should really grate on Progressives.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

Thinman said:


> I agree. They can't step on the floor until they have passed the test. That should really grate on Progressives.


 
And if you look at it another way? So much is demanded of citizens to prove their mettle in whatever profession they choose to follow?

I'd say it's high time for politicians to prove theirs at the behest of their *EMPLOYERS*.


----------



## Thinman (Apr 8, 2010)

We could also incorporate a probationary period for all first time congressmen.


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

The T said:


> *ANY* Congresscritter that doesn't KNOW the Document should be voted the HELL OUT...and frankly I am an advocate of a rather extensive TEST of ALL Representatives that vye for office.
> 
> If they FAIL? Go look for employment elsewhere.



where did you get your expertise in the constitution?


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *ANY* Congresscritter that doesn't KNOW the Document should be voted the HELL OUT...and frankly I am an advocate of a rather extensive TEST of ALL Representatives that vye for office.
> ...


 
Seems to me that this critter FAILED in Demonstrated _knowledge_ of that which HE and Hundreds of others that sought employment swore they'd DEFEND.

This instance scores a Goosegg for that poor Congresscritter.

HOW can one defend what they don't know?

You're barking UP the wrong tree.

As a citizen? I demand that these people take a TEST before they are qualified to RUN for office.

Are you NOT tested to drive upon Public Roadways?

Are not Several trades TESTED for compitency before they are certified BY the Government before THEY can practice?

I'd say this was a two-way street and we shot this shit right back at them.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

Thinman said:


> We could also incorporate a probationary period for all first time congressmen.


 
Disagree respectfully. Do we give probationary periods for certain trades that have to be certified by Government before they practice? They either KNOW or they try another trade.

Same should apply.


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

The T said:


> where did you get your expertise in the constitution?


 
Seems to me that this critter FAILED in Demonstrated _knowledge_ of that which HE and Hundreds of others that sought employment swore they'd DEFEND.

This instance scores a Goosegg for that poor Congresscritter.

HOW can one defend what they don't know?

You're barking UP the wrong tree.

As a citizen? I demand that these people take a TEST before they are qualified to RUN for office.

Are you NOT tested to drive upon Public Roadways?

Are not Several trades TESTED for compitency before they are certified BY the Government before THEY can practice?

I'd say this was a two-way street and we shot this shit right back at them.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying what they should or should not know. But I can tell you that the people who haven't studied the constitution are much more 'certain' of its meaning than the people who have.

hence my asking about your expertise.

oh, and just so you know, i don't buy the whole 'congress critter' thing. i happen to like my representative and i'm very happy with him. i might disagree with your rep, but i'd allow him or her a modicum of respect.


----------



## Modbert (Apr 8, 2010)

I suppose Thomas will be supporting the tossing out of one John Boehner.

Boehner mixes up Constitution and Declaration - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com


----------



## Thinman (Apr 8, 2010)

The T said:


> Thinman said:
> 
> 
> > We could also incorporate a probationary period for all first time congressmen.
> ...



You're a hard man T.


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> I suppose Thomas will be supporting the tossing out of one John Boehner.
> 
> Boehner mixes up Constitution and Declaration - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com



ah...see, that's the thing... they only apply the desire for knowledge to the people they disagree with.
'
otherwise, they'd be laughing their butts off at sarah 'i love the pro-america parts of the country' palin.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > where did you get your expertise in the constitution?
> ...


 
I'm not saying what they should or should not know. But I can tell you that the people who haven't studied the constitution are much more 'certain' of its meaning than the people who have.

hence my asking about your expertise.

oh, and just so you know, i don't buy the whole 'congress critter' thing. i happen to like my representative and i'm very happy with him. i might disagree with your rep, but i'd allow him or her a modicum of respect.[/quote]
 So in other words YOU don't CARE what he/she knows about their OATH of Office...just so you 'LIKE" Them...

YOU are so disingenuous.

I am of the mind it doesn't matter if I like mine or not. IFthey act accordingly to their OATH...they have my vote. They Don't? They're gone.

But I think it sould go a step farther.

Government demands so much of the People that wish their constituients employ? They have to DEMONSTRATE their compitency as well.

Hey If they show they have wroking knowledge of the Constitution? Good for them. They have my vote. They fail? Look for work elsewhere.

It's time to turn the tables on these elites.


----------



## Modbert (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> ah...see, that's the thing... they only apply the desire for knowledge to the people they disagree with.
> '
> otherwise, they'd be laughing their butts off at sarah 'i love the pro-america parts of the country' palin.



Well Mr. LoBiando is a Republican, but a low fish in the sea. Boehner is one of the top Republicans in this country and he doesn't know the Constitution opening. I may not be able to cite from both documents word from word, but I know the difference at least.

It's comments like Sarah Palin's that you mention as well that create a divide. I remember reading something about forming a more perfect union, not trying to call people who do not agree with your side Anti-America.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose Thomas will be supporting the tossing out of one John Boehner.
> ...


 
Here we GO with the "Palin" shit. NO ONE is here talkin about Palin except YOU.

You are more disingenuous than I ever imagined...and you FAIL to derail the thread.

Try elsewhere. NOwhere was she mentioned until NOW. Get lost Jillian. You are an idiot.


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

The T said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



don't like your double standard pointed out, huh?


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 8, 2010)

oh come on people,, they sign legislation and have no idea what they sign,, jeezus,, you expect them to know article one section one??? hell,, and Guam is gonna tip over too,, did you know that?? 



there are idiots leading this country.. "we don't worry about the constitution".. well,, that's apparent innit?


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ah...see, that's the thing... they only apply the desire for knowledge to the people they disagree with.
> ...


 
YES he is a Repubican...and it doesn't matter. HE is a Rep...and he FAILED a test by one of his rather ballsy constituients that happens to hold his Reps to a higher standard than YOU might.

The rest of your post is horseshit. ANY Rep that doesn't KNOW what they've sworn to uphold and defend deserves the AXE.

-THAT is the point. Take your deflection elsewhere.


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ah...see, that's the thing... they only apply the desire for knowledge to the people they disagree with.
> ...



s'okay...did you see our friend t go into melt down when i mentioned her?


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



well,, I guess when Mrs. Palin is sworn in as a Congresswoman or a Senator, we shall expect that she know article one section one.. satisfied counselor?


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> oh come on people,, they sign legislation and have no idea what they sign,, jeezus,, you expect them to know article one section one??? hell,, and Guam is gonna tip over too,, did you know that??
> 
> 
> 
> there are idiots leading this country.. "we don't worry about the constitution".. well,, that's apparent innit?


 
These people wouldn't know real responsibility if it smacked them directly in the face, and by their deflections, their very answers speaks volumes to the fact that they don't care nor prize their own Liberty that is being taken, swindled from them.


----------



## Thinman (Apr 8, 2010)

Personally, it doesn't matter weather R or D, they should know what they are sworn to defend.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 8, 2010)

The T said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > oh come on people,, they sign legislation and have no idea what they sign,, jeezus,, you expect them to know article one section one??? hell,, and Guam is gonna tip over too,, did you know that??
> ...






well,, "strive for excellence" isn't something that Jilly expects of her "leaders"  she forgives them their stupidity..


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

Thinman said:


> Personally, it doesn't matter weather R or D, they should know what they are sworn to defend.


 
Or *I* Or any other letter, moniker they claim to be their own. 

Fact is? We should DEMAND a working knowledge of the offices these people seek. That is the bottom line.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


 
Point and reference noted, and so damned true. Unfortunately I cannot give you REP for this...damnit...


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
Does Palin hold an office right now? NO.

Your logic FAILS Jillian. Rhetoric that fails miserably.

And that all you ever have on this board...Bullshit rhetoric.


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

The T said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



no. my logic doesn't fail. nor do i engage in empty rhetoric like your rant about 'congress critters'.

but i think you have a lot of nerve demanding one standard from certain people, then cheerleading for someone who wouldn't know the constitution if it bit her on the butt.

my fave is you people giving her a pass because she doesn't hold office "right now". (and then in the same breath,    talk about her running for office).


----------



## jillian (Apr 8, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> well,, "strive for excellence" isn't something that Jilly expects of her "leaders"  she forgives them their stupidity..



no one who ever cast a vote for bush has any business talking about forgiving stupidity, hon. now hush, or i'll have to smack you down again.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
PALIN doesn't Hold Office and SHE speaks to what I am talking about. She demonstrates aptly by her participation that she KNOWS the Constitution unlke YOU.

So Spare me...SPARE US on the Board.

It's high time SOMEONE on this board told you to SHUT UP. YOU don't know what you are talking about and that YOU demnstrate what a fucking partisan HACK that YOU truly are Jillian...

And YOU may quote me. Some of us hold our REPS to a high standard. YOU Love the DREGS, and the Riff Raff that will take YOUR liberty from you in a blink of an eye.

YOU support enemies of liberty...and that is ALL there is to say of you from my observations.

*I* don't hold anyone in regard that cannot answer simple questions of that which they are expected to know especially politician HACKS. "Supposedly from "MY SIDE".

Take a fuckin HIKE.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 8, 2010)

What office is Mrs. Palin running for Jillian??


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> What office is Mrs. Palin running for Jillian??


 
I gotta read the answer...*This Should Be good*


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 9, 2010)

The T said:


> Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER
> 
> Folks? It IS our Duty to grill these people. THEY are our employees...seems that some don't KNOW their JOB.
> 
> Go get them. Call them OUT.



How ironic.

You're criticizing a congressman for not knowing the Constitution without understanding it yourself.

Our representatives are not "our employees."  They're citizens we've chosen to act in our names.  We trust them to act autonomously.  It's not a master and servant relationship.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 9, 2010)

The score is:

The T - 100

Jillian - 0

Dogfart - 0


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 9, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER
> ...



Who pays our representatives salaries?



I rest my case!


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 9, 2010)

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > well,, "strive for excellence" isn't something that Jilly expects of her "leaders"  she forgives them their stupidity..
> ...



I voted for Gore once, and Boooooooooooooosh once.. both were studpid moves,, but hey! I ain't approached stupid  as in obama yet..


----------



## chanel (Apr 9, 2010)

The entire oath is an oxymoron. Defending a document that limits the power of govt? Every single one of them is in it for the power. Maybe they put one hand on the Bible and cross their fingers behind their back with the other hand. Wouldn't that be slightly less dishonest? "My fingers were crossed people..." Lol


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 9, 2010)

I propose we allow every member of Congress to carry a copy in their pocket and refer to it as necessary.  That way it will be an open book test.

Then we won't have to deal with idiotic sharp-shooters whose only intent is to embarrass an elected official at a public event.  

That and T will have to find something else to rant about.


----------



## Terry (Apr 9, 2010)

Hey T, and everyone else I got this link and thought I would share it. Great read, clicking on the actual speech documents is a must when you have time.

Davy Crockett and the U.S. Constitution | Personal Liberty Digest


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 9, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Why would you do that?  Your "argument" is far from convincing.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 9, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *ANY* Congresscritter that doesn't KNOW the Document should be voted the HELL OUT...and frankly I am an advocate of a rather extensive TEST of ALL Representatives that vye for office.
> ...



Reading it.

It's a shame that so many people don't.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Which is precisely what the person was demonstrating to the Representative. The man was on the mark. The representitive was caught not knowing his true job.


----------



## asaratis (Apr 10, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


It's not that hard to read.  It's not too long to read in one sitting.  It could be read easily within an hour....it and the amendments to it.

Here you can try the Chinese Constitution also.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I just finished reading every word of the Constitution and Amendments in a leisurely paced three hours, with  a break in the middle to tune my 10-string guitar.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I can understand a Congressperson not being familiar with the text of a 1400 page, cut and paste, legal document that has been deliberately confused with references to thousands of other documents by paragraph number only.  I can forgive a Congressperson (or any voting citizen) for requesting a week or so to read and understand what's about to become law.   But to not be at least familiar with the very Constitution they are sworn to defend...that's pitiful.  My grandson likely knows more of what's in the Constitution than do the three dopes running the show in Washington at this time.  Obama/Pelosi/Reid...the trio that is above the Constitution by virtue of self-adornment and mutual crowning...have ignored the Constitution in their drive to Marxism.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

TWICE!!!!!

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Apr 10, 2010)

Jillian posted a link a while ago where ordinary folks and congrescritters were asked questions about what the constitution said.

The congresscritters scored in the low sixties. 

That level of incompetence needs to be ferreted out, and voted out.  Party labels don't matter.   If they don't know the job, they should find something else more suited to their talents.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Jillian posted a link a while ago where ordinary folks and congrescritters were asked questions about what the constitution said.
> 
> The congresscritters scored in the low sixties.
> 
> That level of incompetence needs to be ferreted out, and voted out. Party labels don't matter. If they don't know the job, they should find something else more suited to their talents.


 
Exactly. They want the Job? They had better be 100%. They had better be _RAZORS. It's high time we demanded it._


----------



## Polk (Apr 10, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *ANY* Congresscritter that doesn't KNOW the Document should be voted the HELL OUT...and frankly I am an advocate of a rather extensive TEST of ALL Representatives that vye for office.
> ...



At the bottom of a liquor bottle.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Polk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
*FUCK YOU* Polk You don't know what the Hell you're talking about. You had better explain yourself. *HERE*


----------



## Polk (Apr 10, 2010)

The T said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Tommy, they have treatment programs for your condition. Look into them.


----------



## Annie (Apr 10, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > *ANY* Congresscritter that doesn't KNOW the Document should be voted the HELL OUT...and frankly I am an advocate of a rather extensive TEST of ALL Representatives that vye for office.
> ...



I'm not too worried about The T's constitutional knowledge. He is only speaking his mind on a board. Legislators lack of knowledge is however a bit troubling. Even moreso, any disinterest in that document at all, the one they took an oath to uphold.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Annie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Exactly correct. Even I knew more than that Congresscritter.  It is indeed troubling to note that these people take an oath to protect and defend something that they know nothing of or could care a wit about other than their own power over others.

It's dangerous, and that's the inherient point. Thanks Annie.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Polk said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


 
Either prove your assertion or shut up.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

asaratis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


 
They aren't that smart to understand it. it's above their collective heads therefore they dismiss it. All they care about is helping their Congresscritter to raid the treasury for their personal gain.

Liberty means ZERO to these twits.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Terry said:


> Hey T, and everyone else I got this link and thought I would share it. Great read, clicking on the actual speech documents is a must when you have time.
> 
> Davy Crockett and the U.S. Constitution | Personal Liberty Digest


 
Got it archived  Terry. Thanks so much.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Terry said:


> Hey T, and everyone else I got this link and thought I would share it. Great read, clicking on the actual speech documents is a must when you have time.
> 
> Davy Crockett and the U.S. Constitution | Personal Liberty Digest


 


Davy introduces himself to the farmer and says, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and .
Before he could continue, the man interrupted and said, Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I supposed you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.
Needless to say, the young congressman is surprised and asks the man why on earth not. The farmer replies, You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me.
As Davy says, when he later related the story on the floor of Congress, This was a sockdolager! I told the man, There must be some mistake, for I do not remember that I gave my vote last winter upon any constitutional question. The man replies, No, Colonel, theres no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?
Crockett replies, Certainly it is. And I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.
Then comes the classic denouement: Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?
Let me pick up the rest of this part of the story, exactly as Davy Crockett told it on the floor of Congress: Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:  Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.
Id love to share the farmers entire response with you, but I dont have room here. Instead, let me do two things. First, let me direct you to Davy Crocketts complete speech. _Personal Liberty Digest_ has created a special link to Sockdolager! by Davy Crockett. To see it, just click here.(And while youre there, why not send it to a few dozen of your friends?)
Second, let me go right to the farmers concluding remarks. He told the congressman, When Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.
Davy has no choice but to acknowledge the truth of what hes heard. He tells the man, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.
What are the chances, ladies and gentlemen, that *your* congressman would ever make such an admissionor such a speechtoday?

_____________________

Crockett was Honest. Credit where it is due.

Unlike the Vid I posted where the man lecturing the Congresscritter was called "_Out Of Order"_


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER
> ...


 

Oh, I understand it very well sport. 

I only have it POSTED for all to Refer to as a reference on my site:

The United States Constitution

Not only that...but to further...

The Declaration Of Independence

Articles Of Confederation

The FEDERALIST PAPERS

The Anti-Federalists

Pretty Much the History of the Founding. So Son? Before you devlop a further taste for Shoe leather?

DO some fuckin research about WHOM you're speaking.


----------



## The T (Apr 10, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER
> ...


 
YES they are. You stretch this far often?


----------



## Annie (Apr 10, 2010)

The T said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



LOL!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The T again.


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 10, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > where did you get your expertise in the constitution?
> ...



Driving on the Public roadways is not something the affects the entire US population. These politicians make decisions that reach at least everyone on the state level if not the entire country so I believe they should be held to a higher standard. If you can't explain the document that you are sworn to uphold, you should not be in the position to attempt to uphold it.


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 11, 2010)

The T said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I think I've done all the research necessary.  From what I've seen, you're nothing but a "copy and paste commando."  You point to source documents without understanding them, then make bizarre claims and jump to startling conclusions.

Our representatives are not our employees and they don't have to be able to recite chapter and verse to do what we want them to do.  You won't find that in old parchment, so don't try; at least not in text you can copy and paste.  You have to understand the documents and their context.

Better get started.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 11, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER
> ...



Are we paying them to represent us?  Why, yes, I believe we are.  So they ARE our employees.  And maybe YOU trust them to act autonomously.  Intelligent people watch them like hawks and expect them to do as their constituents tell them.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

Thinman said:


> I agree.  They can't step on the floor until they have passed the test.  That should really grate on Progressives.



Talk about not knowing the Constitution...Sweet Irony.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

Thinman said:


> We could also incorporate a probationary period for all first time congressmen.



We could?  Where does it say that in the Constitution?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

The T said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Where in the Constitution does it say that, Tommy?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



He never does...that's why he's such an....er....success.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

The T said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Why no...she doesn't.   She quit in the middle of her term.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 12, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



If I paid your salary I'd be your boss, since I pay my representatives salary that makes me their boss. In other words you stupid fuck, they work for us, they are our employees. We hired them when we elected them and we can sure as hell fire their dumbassess too.  Get your head out of your ass and pay attention!


----------



## DiamondDave (Apr 12, 2010)

jillian said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose Thomas will be supporting the tossing out of one John Boehner.
> ...



Nope... for me.. I don't care WHO they are.. REP, DEM, CON, GRE, IND, or whatever else... they do not know the Constitution (as evidenced by talking points and by bills that are proposed), they have no business in congress


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Then, if you are not happy with your Representative...fire them...all. by. yourself.


oops.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



I like my representative. I'd vote to re-elect him if he decides to run again.  The fact of the matter is they work for us, and we can fire them either by not re-electing them or by recall/impeachment.


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 12, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



The employment relationship includes the right to command the employee and to terminate the relationship.  An elected official is answerable to no one and can't be fired.  He, therefore, is not an employee.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 12, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



He can be fired dumbass and he answers to his constiuents. You are one stupid fuck!!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 12, 2010)

Recall of State Officials


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



And what if the Representative you like is DISLIKED by a majority?   And what if the Representative you want to fire is LIKED by the majority?

Hiring/Firing  is a simplistic description by a simplistic poster.   It's quite more complex than that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No it's not complex, but I can see how a simpleton like you would think it was.  I used simplistic descriptions as not to confuse the likes of you, but apparently it wasn't simplistic enough. Fact is the people are the ones that ultimately decides who gets elected and who doesn't and there is legal procedures where state reps can be impeached or recalled.


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
And should be without delay.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Of course there are...but in order to be IMPEACHED, one must commit a crime.   ( You not liking them does not constitute a crime...sorry)

In order to be RECALLED, it too requires a MAJORITY of voters to vote yes.  (You not liking them does not constitute a majority...sorry)


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

The T said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Based on what charges or reasons?


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...


 
I agree. And not listening to their constituients especially what we witnessed during the HealthCare debates. They knew it wasn't wanted. Many went ahead anyway.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

The T said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Based on what charges or reasons?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 12, 2010)

The T said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Based on what charges or reasons?


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


 
*YOU* are Delusional.


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
This is what JOEY needs to understand and be re-educated upon. He thinks politicians can do whatever they want and won't be held accountable.


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


 
You should apply to the MODS for a Name Change to Joe Dirt...(Yeah you're just as stupid as that character).


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
And in particuliar when they think the LAW they write doesn't apply to themselves.


----------



## The T (Apr 12, 2010)

Annie said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


 
Thanks. Joey Dirt thinks Politicians are Above the LAWS they write, therefore they cannot be FIRED for their actions against the People AND the LAW, especially the Constitution.


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 13, 2010)

The T said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



How so?


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 13, 2010)

The T said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > I think I've done all the research necessary. From what I've seen, you're nothing but a "copy and paste commando." You point to source documents without understanding them, then make bizarre claims and jump to startling conclusions.
> ...



In what way?


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 13, 2010)

The T said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



That doesn't make any sense.  What are you trying to say?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 13, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



You notice how he can't even tell us what charges or reasons there are to get rid of Representives he wants use to get rid of?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 13, 2010)

Joe Steel said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Employee - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And this is how one fires an elected official:

Impeachment - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And that's completely aside from voting his ass out next time he comes up for re-election.

Stunning that you "researched" the subject, and missed something as basic as what the words actually mean.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Maybe YOU can answer...Tommy seems to be passed out under the table...what would you impeach the Representatives in question over?


----------



## Joe Steel (Apr 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Utter nonsense.  You've completely misunderstood the issue at hand.  

Your employee definition applies to statutory or common law employees not elected officials.  Impeachment applies to elected officials not employees.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Hey stupid, I'm speaking in general terms, those who hold public office can in fact be impeached and/or recalled. Stop trying to make this a personal issue, it only makes yourself look even more foolish.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Why concentrate on the impeachment process? In most of the recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election. In other words the grounds can be as simple as incompetence or malfeasance.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I'm sorry but you have taken that position of Stupidest Poster.   Now...explain to us again about how getting rid of a Congressman is like "firing" someone (which is a very personal one on one issue, btw)


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



OK, NAME the incompetence or malfeasance that all these Congressmen are recall-worthy of.


(BTW...could you point out in the Constitution the part where it allows for the Recall of U.S. representatives?)


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Now you want to argue over semantics? Get a life!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Again you're attempting to make this a personal issue. I'm simply stating for the record that state representatives can be impeached and/or recalled. The recall process is not in the US Constitution but rather in the respective States' Constitutions. I gave you two reasons that can be used in a recall, incompetence and malfeaseance. Shall I define the two words for you? Because you're asking to name the incompetence and or malfeasance of congressmen when in fact the two words are self explanatory. Oh by the way, I haven't called for anyone to be impeached or recalled.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The score is:
> 
> The T - 100
> 
> ...



I find this hysterical considering that at this point there aren't even 100 posts in this thread....I guess Lonestar Secesh counts as well as he constructs arguments.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Show me which State Constitutions allow for the Recall of U.S. Representatives.  Reference at least one for me.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The score is:
> ...



You're assuming I scored 1 point per post. You assume wrong.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Recall of State Officials

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2  VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 14.  (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.  Proponents have 160 days to
file signed petitions.
   (b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1
percent of the last vote for the office in the county.  Signatures to
recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of
Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must
equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
   (c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

 b.   The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress.  The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections.  Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled.  If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections.  The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.  
New Jersey State Constitution

The Legal Standards for Holding a Recall Election of Members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate Elected from the State of Kansas

Article 4, Section 3 of the Kansas Constitution specifically states:

"All elected public officials in the state, except judicial officers, shall be subject to recall by voters of the state or political subdivision from which elected"
State of Kansas Recall Election Statutes


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Interesting....I did not know that states had that power, since it is not part of the qualifications for office and election to office of U.S. Representatives listed in the Constitution.   I have to wonder if a state were to try to recall a Representative or Senator would it stand constitutional muster.   But until that time, I stand corrected.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Why shouldn't it hold "constitutional muster"? Show me which Article of the Constitution would call into question the States' rights to recall their representatives. I offer the Tenth Amendment to support the legalities of recalling State Officials.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Well, if I am not mistaken, Article I, Section 4 gives the States the power to set times, places, and manners of holding elections however Section 5 says "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and QUALIFICATIONS of its own members"...furthermore "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."


While the Xth Amendment says this:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."   

If you look to Article I, Sections 4 & 5, those powers ARE delegated to the United States therefore they do not fall to the States.   So, while I am not a Constitutional lawyer...to my layman's eyes, seems to me once the people have elected a qualified member to Congress...until the next election...their continued service depends on Congress itself.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 14, 2010)

Thought I'd chime in here.

First, I understand the frustration people feel when their representatives do not have a strong knowledge of the constitution.  That makes perfect sense.  However, there already are processes in place to remove/replace members of congress if you feel they are not up to the job.  If you want to 'fire' them, vote for someone else, or run yourself.  

I'd also like to point out that saying 'they are our employees' doesn't really fit the situation.  Being employed by everyone (or at least everyone of voting age) is not the same as being the employee of a business.  YOU may feel a representative is doing a poor job, is unqualified, etc....but unless enough voters agree with you, you don't get to decide they should be 'fired'.  

Can congresspeople vote for themselves in elections?  If so, don't they have just as much say in whether or not they should be fired as any other citizen? 

Oh, and because I can't help but nit-pick, I've seen quite a few instances in this thread of people saying our congresspeople must know the constitution because they have sword to defend it.  Wouldn't that mean our soldiers should also be tested on the constitution?  Don't they swear an oath to support and defend the constitution? (I understand there's a big difference, like I said, this is just nit-picking the wording used )

As I said at the beginning, I get the anger and frustration when you feel your representative isn't living up to something you think should be bare minimum requirements of the job.  By all means, vote against those reps; contact any you believe are good and ask them to propose legislation requiring testing, or propose an amendment requiring it; run for congress yourself to try and do these things.  Even if no amendment or law is passed, if enough fuss is created it might at least get some of the current reps to consider boning up on the constitution to please their constituents.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Then the Constitution supports my argument that House members can be recalled, or in the words of the Constitution "expelled".

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf


----------



## The T (Apr 14, 2010)

Article 1...

Section 4 & 5


*Section 4.* 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. 
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. 

*Section 5.* 

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. 
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. 

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. 
 Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 

___________________

-All they do is explain how the Congress itself conducts it's business. It however says ZERO of what the States, or the _people_ respectively can recall, nor dismiss it's elected federal officials.

That is left to the States or _The people _per The Tenth Amendment.


----------



## The T (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
It's all she has. And you won't convince her at all. In fact mine is a call for people to wake up and hold their representives accountable, early, and often. And yes, contrary to belief per some that have been in this thread?

They -_are_- *employees* of the people.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 14, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



By their Congress compatriots.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Fact is dumbshit, I'm right and you're wrong. You keep changing the parameters of the debate and everytime you do, you still lose. Whether under the US constitution or by State Constitution, there is procedures to remove an official from office.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 15, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So...you disagree with what the Constitution says in Article I, Sections 4 & 5?   


BTW, your wording is precious.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Do I disagree? No, because it supports my argument that politicians can be removed from office. It doesn't say that that is the ONLY way to expel a member.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 15, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Really?   

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly BEhavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member"

Can  you point out the part of that that says...."except if the state wants to do something different...."?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No but I never made that distinction.

I said that according to several state constitutions a state representative could be recalled.  You said it wouldn't hold up to Constitutional muster. But I recklon you're wanting to change your position again.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 15, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Nope...show us where whatever a state constitution says would trump what the U.S. Constitution says on the issue, tho.   I look forward to your next amusing statement.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 16, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



How many times are you going to lose this same argument?


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
And of course? The electeds had to fulfill certain prerequisites to get elected. And don't bother arguing with it. She's well known for changing the framing of the argument. It's a typical tactic.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 16, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Show us where it says what a state constitution says trumps the U.S. Constitution.   Still waiting  (and just declaring some kind of victory without proving squat just makes you look silly(ier))


----------



## bodecea (Apr 16, 2010)

The T said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Maybe you can show us where what a State Constitution says can trump what the U.S. Constitution says.   Try to find the time between drinks.


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

Boredtaseeya? Grab your steelydan and go fuck yerself.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUkBOuFJgr4"]YouTube - GINO VANNELLI - Persona Non Grata[/ame]


----------



## bodecea (Apr 18, 2010)

The T said:


> Boredtaseeya? Grab your steelydan and go fuck yerself.
> 
> YouTube - GINO VANNELLI - Persona Non Grata



Just because that is how you deal with your sexual needs after drinking, doesn't mean the rest of us are reduced to our own hand, Tommy.

(BTW...noticed that you STILL cannot show where State Constitutions can trump the U.S. Constitution....but that is your MO, when you've got nothing, you deflect and insult and drink)


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



As a matter of fact it makes you look even more retarded. I'll post this again and I suggest you READ it. 

*"Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office"*

"A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt"
"Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988."

Recall of State Officials


----------



## bodecea (Apr 19, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Let me help you with bold print...STATE....let me spell it slowly....S....T....A....T....E...legislators.   We were discussing FEDERAL.....F....E....D....E....R....A....L   legislators and the U.S Constitution.


So...with all that....we are STILL waiting for someone to show how a state constitution can trump the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No one here has suggested the States' Constitution can trump the US Constitution you stupid fuck. But obviously you don't pay attention to the legal proceedings going on in the US. 

In New Jersey a Tea Party group has won the first round in recalling US Senator Robert Menendez. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of recalling a U.S. Senator. But the Appeals Court stated, "Given the will of the people embodied in our state organic law, and the dearth of clear precedent nullifying the people's enactments, *we accordingly decline at this juncture to find our state constitutional provision and related stature permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional*," The Court went on to say, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] *may well result in the conclusion that it may be done*."

The Court took pains to say its decision is not "definitively valid or invalid," and in fact put a stay on its own decision until lawyers for Senator Menendez can appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the Court was definitive in ordering the current Secretary of State to allow the petition effort of the Tea Party to move forward, should the State Supreme Court agree

Menendezs attorney and the state Attorney Generals Office have argued the U.S. Constitution trumps both the state constitution and state law, which permit the recall of federal officials. *The federal Constitution neither permits nor prohibits such recall efforts*.

But the Constitutions silence is a signal the states law and constitution are valid, according to the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Wow....you and others MOST CERTAINLY WERE....and anyone looking back at the posts in question can see that.    



> In New Jersey a Tea Party group has won the first round in recalling US Senator Robert Menendez. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of recalling a U.S. Senator. But the Appeals Court stated, "Given the will of the people embodied in our state organic law, and the dearth of clear precedent nullifying the people's enactments, *we accordingly decline at this juncture to find our state constitutional provision and related stature permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional*," The Court went on to say, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] *may well result in the conclusion that it may be done*."



Silence means consent?   Maybe it means they haven't had a case to decide yet.   But I welcome the crazy teabaggers' attempt at recalling a U.S. Senator.   Let everyone in New Jersey see how loony they are....and in New Jersey, that's saying a lot.



> The Court took pains to say its decision is not "definitively valid or invalid," and in fact put a stay on its own decision until lawyers for Senator Menendez can appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
> 
> Nonetheless, the Court was definitive in ordering the current Secretary of State to allow the petition effort of the Tea Party to move forward, should the State Supreme Court agree




You are aware, I hope, that allowing a petition effort to continue is NOT agreement that something is Constitutional.   Prop 187 here in CA went thru the entire process, was voted on and passed by about 65% about 10-15 years ago...and was immediately declared unConstitutional.


> Menendezs attorney and the state Attorney Generals Office have argued the U.S. Constitution trumps both the state constitution and state law, which permit the recall of federal officials. *The federal Constitution neither permits nor prohibits such recall efforts*.



Sounds like they are saying exactly what I've been saying.



> But the Constitutions silence is a signal the states law and constitution are valid, according to the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement.



The Constitution's silence?   How about those sections of Article I that I quoted.   Silent my ass.


But...you know, this will be a good thing.  The Supreme Court may not be silent for very long on this and the whole "state recalls trump U.S. Constitution" thingee will be gone for good....except for the nutbar loony teabaggers.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The article you posted said nothing about the recall process, hence the Constitution's silence on this matter. That's why it will be going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. You're ignoring the fact that the Appeals Court opinion was that this recall is NOT unconstitutional.  Thier opinion added, "The silence of the federal Constitution [on recall] *may well result in the conclusion that it may be done."*

Show where I have stated that a States Constitution trumps the US Constitution.

I have stated from the start and I still maintain that office holders can be removed from office by recall or by several different means whether they are recalled, impeached. expelled or voted out. Since this is the first time ever that a US Representative is the subject of a recall the constitutionality has never been an issue up until now. So in essence you have no leg to stand on to support your claim that recalling a US representative is unconstitutional.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 20, 2010)

The T said:


> Imagine that? A Congresscritter that is SWORN to uphold it...Defend it...Is called out upon it...and by...[DrumRoll]...A TEA PARTY MEMBER
> 
> YouTube - LoBiondo doesn't know the US Constitution
> 
> ...



I did not vote for LoBiando.
Never even heard of em.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



The article I posted?   What article have I posted, Secesh?   Are  you lying again?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I haven't lied and I don't lie you stupid fuck. Either you or someone else posted article 1 from which you quoted from and have referenced, I assumed you posted it, I could be mistaken, but nonetheless it says absolutely nothing about recalling a US Representative, hence it's silence on the matter. 

In other words you dimwitted parasite, since the Constitution is silent about the matter, the case against Mendez is going to be heard in New Jersey's Supreme Court. The Appeals Court has already given their opinion saying that they do not find this action unconstitutional and they believe that it may very well result in the recall being done.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So, you admit that you don't even check before you say I posted some article.   Go back and look (I did when I became puzzled by your lying post)  You just make shit up.   

As for calling me a parasite....yeah I suppose someone like you would call a retired military officer a parasite.   Tell us what you have done for this country again?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Again? That would imply that I've already told you. I could care less if your retired military or not, you're still a parasite. Tim McVeigh also served in the military as did Nidal Malik Hasan and John Allen Muhammad.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Interesting.   Very interesting.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And very true.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So...you call me a parasite and say it is very true.   Should be easy to prove...do so.


You compare me to Tim McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan, and John Allen Muhammad and say it is very true.   Should be easy to prove...do so.


Failure to do so will simply augment the already overwhelming proof that you are a chronic liar and perpetual loser.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's my opinion of you, I don't need to prove it, it's true.

Yes I did.  You all are or were former military.  I can prove they were, but you, I'll just have to take you at your word. 

Seems like you just can't accept the fact that I am right about the fact that public officials can be recalled as well as being right about blacks fighting for the Confederacy.

Don't ya think those poor dead horses has been beat enough? You should concede with honor. Then I may change my opinion of you.


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 20, 2010)

The T said:


> LoBiando Doesn't KNOW The Constitution...



Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution = First Amendment

Who knew?

(That's pretty basic folks, even for a member of Congress.)


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Ah...I see that you and the rest of the world have a different idea of what "true" means.   

No wonder you come across as a chronic liar.   You can't help yourself.

As for conceding, if I were to ever lose a debate with you, I would....however, that would require that I LET you win...debating you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed 'man'.

And...finally, what in the world do YOU know about Honor?  Pul-leeze.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > LoBiando Doesn't KNOW The Constitution...
> ...



I agree he goofed for whatever reason....but do people have the ability to recall him?


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Not directly.  But if there is enough public outcry, Congress can act and expel him.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



Well, that is a possibility not considered before....do you think outcry alone would be enough without some crime?


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Sure.  If a member of Congress is a stupid idiot and the people want him/her removed, it could happen.  If the public outcry might affect the reelection bid for the other members of Congress, you bet!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What? You don't believe your opinions are true? Damn, you're not too sure of yourself then are ya? Your opinion of me comes into doubt now.

What do I know about honor? Well I understand the definition and I'll know it when I see it. 

Let me win? Let's review: 

I stated that a public official can be recalled. I have shown more than enough proof that supports that claim. 

I claimed that blacks had fought for the Confederacy and again I have proven my claim.

So there was no "letting me win". 

Let the dead horse be!


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



How do you think that might work?   Keeping in mind that it would take more than just a few congressmen from the same state/region to expell that congressman...I believe the Constitution says it takes 2/3rds.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




OK, let's play YOUR way.

My opinion is that you are a  thumbsucking pedophile who wants Texas to secede from the United States  so you can have free reign on any child under 10 you can get your hands on.   Furthermore it is my opinion that you as dishonest, have no honor and have probably done some unnatural acts with your neighbors' pets, or if not, it's only because your neighbor knows you well enough and keeps their animals under lock and key.


It must be TRUE because it's my OPINION.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Aww come on now, tell us how you really feel.


----------



## The T (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
*That would have been myself. It was a factcheck.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/2208508-post109.html*


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Hey!   It's the truth.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2010)

The T said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Thanks T, I knew I had seen it posted and since bodumbshit was referring to it I assumed, wrongfully I might add, that, that was who had posted it.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I see you've been taking lessons from Liability....


----------



## The T (Apr 20, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
De nada. Don't sweat it my friend. We're on the same page.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 21, 2010)

The T said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Old Mr. Boston's Bar Guide?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 22, 2010)

So...does anyone here have any convincing argument that states can trump the U.S. Constitution and recall U.S. Congressment?


----------

