Obama names Hillary Clinton to Cabinet. But wait! Can he?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Pretty funny since Obama is a constitutional lawyer. But this has been done three times before and each time the President just asked congress (or whomever) to rescind the pay increase

[Null]

Meh, if he can't get her then he should pick Bill instead. Bill, fuck yeah!

[Valkrish]

Hillary, or Bill clinton is A-ok in my book.

[Olo401]

It is quite an interesting Constitutional issue, isn't it?

Pretty funny since Obama is a constitutional lawyer. But this has been done three times before and each time the President just asked congress (or whomever) to rescind the pay increase

Oh hmm. That adds some extra interesting-ness to the whole thing now doesn't it?

And this whole thing in Canada.. damn I haven't laughed so hard at a conservative since I watched my grandmother's Deam Martin Roast tapes and they had Ronald Reagan on.

[oldoldman]

The only thing I hate about Hillary being nominated is she basically muscle her way in. She was obviously the one that leaked to the press that she was being considered and Obama didn't really have a choice after that if he wanted to look gracious at all. But judging from what he said about her in the primaries he's lying somewhere.

[Vuitton]

Oh whatever. This professional blogger (lmao) must know nothing about law and how it works. Laws are just a bunch of words that can be understood in various ways and the most convincing attorney gets to enforce his definition of it (or a version close to it should a Judge choose to hand write edits onto the Order.)

In addition to precedent (three times), its obvious that the law was created to prevent lawmakers from boosting the salaries of positions they're planning on taking in the near future and profiting from it. The solution? Again, obviously, you make sure the person you want to take the position does not benefit from the new salary. This can be done in several ways. One example would be paying them the old salary.

As if the fucking salary means anything to Hillary and Bill. They're fucking millionaires making bank outside their official salaries. The only reason they would even care about it is just to flex their muscles to those around them just to show they can.

Remember Hillary threw down like five million of her own cash on her presidential campaign. She probably makes more money annually on the interest of her already earned money than her annual salary.

This whole issue is moot and something being used just to rile up people who dislike Hillary. Its like those idiots that were like "Obama isn't American! His birth certificate is fake!"

Cry me a river.
/small violin

[Defconnexion]

That Hillary, she knew when she voted for the pay raise, that she would run for president, spend millions of dollars, and lose on purpose so she can get nominated as secretary of state. Very smart lady if you ask me.

Machiavellian. It is good to see the wool has not been pulled over everyone's eyes.

[Demosthenes11]

Oh whatever. This professional blogger (lmao) must know nothing about law and how it works. Laws are just a bunch of words that can be understood in various ways and the most convincing attorney gets to enforce his definition of it (or a version close to it should a Judge choose to hand write edits onto the Order.)

In addition to precedent (three times), its obvious that the law was created to prevent lawmakers from boosting the salaries of positions they're planning on taking in the near future and profiting from it. The solution? Again, obviously, you make sure the person you want to take the position does not benefit from the new salary. This can be done in several ways. One example would be paying them the old salary.

As if the fucking salary means anything to Hillary and Bill. They're fucking millionaires making bank outside their official salaries. The only reason they would even care about it is just to flex their muscles to those around them just to show they can.

Remember Hillary threw down like five million of her own cash on her presidential campaign. She probably makes more money annually on the interest of her already earned money than her annual salary.

This whole issue is moot and something being used just to rile up people who dislike Hillary. Its like those idiots that were like "Obama isn't American! His birth certificate is fake!"

Cry me a river.
/small violin

. <---The point. You somehow missed it

[Vuitton]

. <---The point. You somehow missed it

What would that be? I think I touched on everything that article was trying to insinuate.

[Maxxthepenguin]

The point is strict constitutionalism can get really retarded

Let's talk more about canada instead of these god damn ideologues.

[Skjie]

The point is strict constitutionalism can get really retarded

Let's talk more about canada instead of these god damn ideologues.

I tried dude, people just ignored me.

[pohibaba]

The point is strict constitutionalism can get really retarded

Let's talk more about canada instead of these god damn ideologues.

The point is a country of men will always be less free than a country of laws. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that something as silly as this should keep Hillary from being the Secretary of State, but why don't we amend the law instead of just ignoring it?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The point is a country of men will always be less free than a country of laws. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that something as silly as this should keep Hillary from being the Secretary of State, but why don't we amend the law instead of just ignoring it?

Because then the Dems have to leave it up to the people.

[Charla]

So finding a loophole is the same as ignoring now?

If it could be amended without a media shitstorm, it would have been done 30 years ago. "Newly elected president wants Constitution changed to accommodate his cabinet choice" just isn't a headline a politician wants to see.

In that respect, the very fact that the inflated significance we attach to the Constitution makes it extremely hard to change acts to make this a "country of men", because it makes the nature of "men" more significant than it would otherwise be to the process of making decisions.

[pohibaba]

So finding a loophole is the same as ignoring now?

If it could be amended without a media shitstorm, it would have been done 30 years ago. "Newly elected president wants Constitution changed to accommodate his cabinet choice" just isn't a headline a politician wants to see.

In that respect, the very fact that the inflated significance we attach to the Constitution makes it extremely hard to change acts to make this a "country of men", because it makes the nature of "men" more significant than it would otherwise be to the process of making decisions.

Are you claiming that we haven't simply ignored the Constitution in nearly every act of governance we've taken since WWII? That's what I mean by a "country of men." We let the tides of public opinion sway the laws we pass, not whether or not we actually CAN pass these laws.

[Churchill]

Inflated significance.

lol.

[Charla]

Are you claiming that we haven't simply ignored the Constitution in nearly every act of governance we've taken since WWII? That's what I mean by a "country of men." We let the tides of public opinion sway the laws we pass, not whether or not we actually CAN pass these laws.

Strictly speaking, because the Constitution can be modified, we CAN do whatever we want, sometimes it just takes a good deal more effort than we usually want to give it.

When people make the grievous accusation of "subverting the Constitution" whenever someone conflicts with it slightly, it seems justified to call that a bit inflated.

[Xno Kappa]

Wait wait wait....I must have missed the memo. We're actually adhering to the constitution now, and over something like this lol? Love how selectively petty politics can get when 8 year-old cum-stains try to stick to the hotel sheets during laundry.

[Wizerd]

I couldn't find a Canadian Coalition thread, despite expecting one when I came to the site again for the first time in a few days. So I'll post here.

Regarding the coalition, yes Canadians may have voted for opposition more than the Conservative party overall, but the Conservatives still won and for a coalition to think they have support of Canadians is absurd.

Personally, I voted Liberal with the intent that the Conservatives would win but only as a minority. I knew Harper was going to be PM again, so I had no problem voting against him. He is a Prime Minister that needs to be kept in check, but he is 10 times better than the alternative, Dion.

I know a lot of people who voted for opposition for the same reason as I did and there was a lot of propaganda around election time urging people to vote against Conservative for the exact same reason.

When I voted for the Liberals, I voted for the Liberals. I did not vote for the Liberals, the NDP, and the BQ.

If the coalition is allowed to govern without an election being called, then Canadians better brace themselves for the consequences to come.

[Dimmauk]

I guess I missed the point where the Constitution was being subverted.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7...3bf67oqxx5.jpg

This...

http://theheretik.typepad.com/the_he...age_dogs_1.jpg

Not so much.