Reply With Quote
They are the 'cons utional' party after all...
Kind of defeats the whole Republican message there huh...
Read me...
They are the 'cons utional' party after all...
what was so important that they missed their swearing in?
fundraiser.. things are different with this congress..
@ you bitter little es....
Yes presenting facts to refute lies is always bitter...
For Repugs, "Government Is The Problem", so obviously they disrespek it.
they are going to govern via the cons ution.... what's to be a biitter about?
^^Photo of Sessions and Fitzpatrick taking their TV oath
Hold up your hand in front of CCTV proceedings. Works just the same. Right?
Was it CCTV? I thought they were swearing to C-Span.
There's an irony in this, insofar as they chose to skip the Cons utional parts about African Americans not really being people. That portion of the do ent is a vital part of our shared history, so yeah, leave it to the GOP to to snip, redact and edit our founding do ent, even if it's just in a bit of political theater.
A friend astutely observed that this reading of the Cons ution was an essentially meaningless act without including a recitation of the complementary do ents and supporting arguments; i.e. it is akin to reading the owner's manual of a car, but not knowing how the thing really works once you open up the hood.
http://www.truth-out.org/this-going-suck66619
Yes! Let's over the country and our voters...but we must be sure we honor everything by taking the oath!
lol demagoguery circle jerk
lol Weiner
Dunno, but you're surely right.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-07-2011 at 11:18 PM.
I believe it is a cons utional requirement.
Why do you hate the Cons ution?
Because it can't manifest itself into a holographic Thomas Jefferson and kick the current D.C. clowns.
So, did the two violate any criminal laws? It appears they did not. And, according to the story I read, it wasn't a fundraiser for their political campaigns or offices, they raised funds to pay for the transportation of cons uents.
Did they commit any act that couldn't be rectified? Again, no.
Did Congress enact any legislation that couldn't be fixed? Nope.
Did all concerned go about setting things right after it was discovered they did things wrong? Yep.
So, 2 people out of a body of over 400 commit a minor screw up on opening day, BFD. I'd say that's a pretty good day.
I won't quibble with the fact the two admitted they had missed the boat and took their oaths, in chamber, the following day but, the actual Article of the Cons ution quoted in the story doesn't say anything about them having to be in chamber when they take the oath. Must be a house rule and, well, given the previous House leadership, we know what rules mean.
There are no provisions in the Cons ution for a whole lot of crap the 111th Congress foisted upon us. You know, things that really affect our lives; as opposed to, say, the swearing in of two out of 435 Members.
"...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation..." Where does it say how, where, by whom, or in whose presence, the "binding" takes place? Just asking.
Like I said, must be a House procedure or rule and, well, those are fairly malleable these days.
Last edited by Yonivore; 01-08-2011 at 10:41 AM.
I see it as them *maybe* not being able to have their vote counted until after they swear in.
If the Dems did it, your howls would be audible on the moon.
They probably have and, no, I wouldn't have cared. Seems to be a pretty silly issue.
I thought silly stories were your speciality.
he does..but ony when it comes to democrats
yoni doesn't care about the Cons ution when it suits his agenda.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
