As to your unfamiliarity with the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them; well, your history of writing here speaks for itself.

Physician, heal thyself.

“…the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them is entirely foreign to you.”

Now c’mon, “GMC70.” What’s that if not an unprovoked attack? From you. Toward me.

It’s like Whomever’s Law of Spelling Flames: “The most insulting spelling flame will always include an egregious spelling error of its own.”

Or whichever CON on this forum strutted his intellectual inferiority with the “Tow the line” v. “Toe the line” idiom.

Arrogance and Ignorance. You got through law school, “GMC70,” so I sincerely doubt you’re ignorant. But you seem to have made up for it with arrogance. Three years of law school served you well, I guess.

But there’s nothing but you trying to play the Victim Card that substantiates any attack against me that I “hate” you CONs. Thing is, I’ve dealt with you types all my adult life and and the only that that surprises me about CONs is their seemingly infinite capacity for even more Ignorance and Arrogance.

I go back to one of the seminal moments in this forum when one of you CONs dismissed a link I’d posted with, “Everyone knows http://www.tinyurl is a LIBERAL website!”

So tell us, “GMC70.” Fill this forum with the wisdom and evidence and substance of your comment:

“…the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them is entirely foreign to you.”

Come on, Counselor. Show us what you’ve got.

Justice.

The ‘letter’ of the law may seem harsh and inflexible. And it can be. That is why discretion is built into the law at several levels; from the officer’s discretion to arrest or not, to the prosecutor’s discretion in filing a case or not, to a judge’s discretion in sentencing. But that discretion is built into the ‘letter’ of the law.

No, MH, I’m afraid that the letter of the law is the only thing that is binding, because it is the only thing that is definable. “Justice,” in and of itself, has a thousand definitions.

And yes, it’s a tempest in a teapot, and one I don’t particularly care about (I don’t hate Hillary, I just disagree with her politics, but I know that the concept of disagreeing with someone without hating them is entirely foreign to you) aside from it’s an interesting constitutional question. In all likelihood, we’ll do the “Saxbe fix” and ignore the constitutional question. It’s an equally interesting question as to who, if anyone, has standing to challenge the appointment in court should it be made.

BTW – the provision doesn’t apply to Biden, just as it would not to McCain or Obama, because these are elected positions, not appointments to a civil office.

And you’ll have to smell your own nuts, thanks. I’d prefer you not be sniffing around mine, “right-wing” or otherwise.

Both Biden and McCain were Senators when we last bumped the President’s and Veep’s salaries. I think it might have been before Obama was elected.

McCain may have been born in Panama instead of the Canal Zone, but yes, he’s a natural-born citizen.

And Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Barack Obama was born in 1961 or so.

As to your question, though –

“If we are not bound by “strict adherance,” what are we bound by?”

Justice.

Unlike the Sixth Commandment, which is pretty clear and pretty strict, there’s a concept in common law that embraces “justifiable homicide.” There’s the concept of mitigating circumstances. There’s an unwritten understanding you don’t get a speeding ticket for going 36 in a 35-mph zone.

From the 1700s, I think — maybe it was in Blackwell’s essay on jury nullification — there was a case where a guy stole a loaf of bread from a baker’s garbage and was charged with theft. He had no money, the bread was to feed his starving family, the baker obviously had rendered the loaf value-less, but it was still the baker’s property and the starving guy did, in fact, steal the bread.

Strict adherence to the law would have meant jail. Justice, on the other hand, said something of no value cannot be “stolen.”

Black-letter law is a structure. It’s not intended to be un-just. And real-life circumstances interfere with black-letter law sometimes. That’s why there are juries and that’s why there are judges.

And it works both ways. Nothing in the world could convince me Dennis Rader shouldn’t be hauled out of his cell and shot in the middle of a street like the rabid dog he is. He just happened to do his thing when there was no death penalty. And, despite the injustice of it all, the State of Kansas still doesn’t take convicted murderers out in the street to be shot like the rabid dogs they are.

You, “GMC70,” as much as anybody should realize the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and justice are sometimes three very different things.

I tend to opt for justice, even if I can’t lynch Dennis Rader.

Your little Clinton-can’t-be-SoS case doesn’t stand up to the smell test.

And it reeks of right wing-nut flop sweat.

GMC – over on the Gates thread. You might find it interesting.

A related one might have to do with a child born in a hospital in Paris (not on US soil) but to US parents. I go with calling him/her “native-born” for this purpose.

Yea, I know of that argument. He was born in the Canal Zone. The argument doesn’t even pass the tin-hat test.

First, the Canal Zone was, at the time, US territory, and thus his birth there made him a US citizen, by US law. Second and more important, he was born to parents who were themselves US citizens, thus he was a US citizen by birth, had he been born in the Canal Zone, France, or Timbuktu.

I still got no idea re: any argument Biden cannot be VP, however. Anyone know where that one came from?

I think she has come to realize that she will never be president. 2016 she will be too old – both in years and in ‘exposure’

There had also been a question about the elder Romney having been born overseas – don’t recall what the determinayion was there – moot anyway.

Your answer does raise an interesting question, however. If “strict adherance” to the law is “hell” and thus to be avoided, just when is adherance required? If we are not bound by “strict adherance,” what are we bound by? Each man cannot be sovereign, answerable only to himself; no society can long endure in such a state. So when ARE we bound? Apparantly, only when it suits us?

BTW – I know of no constitutional concerns, gnat-like or otherwise, regarding either Biden’s installation as VP nor McCain’s eligibility to be president, however. To what do you refer?

Someone — a lawyer I think — said the definition of Hell is “strict adherence to to the letter of the law.”

You bring up a sophist law-school Socratic “what-if” that isn’t likely to make it even to this particular right-leaning SCOTUS because it’s straining at gnats.

By your reckoning, “GMC70,” Joe Biden is ineligible to become Vice-President and John McCain would have been ineligible to take the presidency had he been elected.

C’mon.

——

Seems there is always a backlog of cases whereby Constitutional law needs an interpretation handed down by the Court. And often split decisions indicating differing interpretations. Maybe it isn’t as cut and dried as you would like it to be.

I don’t expect the text of the Constitution to be a practical barrier to Hillary’s taking the position. It has been ignored before (see “Saxbe fix”).

Frankly, if Hillary wants to be president at some point, I don’t know why she would take the job. Neither does she have any particular experience that suits her for State. But that’s a call for her and Obama, of course. I just find it an interesting Constitutional question.

Your response tells me, when it comes down to it, what you think of the Constitution, however: an an obstacle to be overcome, not an actual limitation on gov’t action. The words are what they are. Note the Emoluments Clause does not limit the pay raise to one actually voted on by Congress; and even if the raise was by executive order, that order came under Congressional authorization, and the raise occurred during Hillary’s term in office. The plain language of the Constitution thus bars Hillary taking the job.

Either the words of the Constitution have meaning, or they don’t. Which is it?

If she agrees to work for the old salary is it okay since, technically, that salary hasn’t been raised?

If one executive order can raise the SoS salary can’t the new President issue another one lowering it? Can’t the new Congress adjust the salary law before Inauguration Day, ready to be signed on January 20th, before Obama’s cabinet nominees are officially presented for congressional review?

Seems like a tempest in a teapot, “GMC70.”

Seems like Hillary-haters grasping at straws. Again.

—–

It turns out that the biggest obstacle to Hillary Clinton’s march to Foggy Bottom might be grammatical in nature. Adam Bonin and Eugene Volokh weigh in on the debate over the application of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2), which provides:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Isn’t constitutional law fun?

It’s probably the citation to other sites, BTW, rather than anything “naughty.” Though naughty is not always a bad thing . . . .

I’ll take out the additional cites and see if it goes through.

I sent a copy of one of my “awaiting moderation” posts to Brownlee and asked him wtf. He said he sent it on to the moderators and they’d get back to me. They never did.

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:” . . . . . George Washington 1789

“That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers. You’ve got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if — there’s got to be a point where you say, ‘You know what, I have enough, and now I’m in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I’m doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.’ And that’s true, by the way, for members of Congress, that’s true for the president, that’s true for Cabinet members, that’s true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little bit more, not just about what’s good for me, but let’s start thinking about what’s good for our children, what’s good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we’re going to be. ”

Does that mean one of his first acts a President is to make sure that Government official, including the Congress, are subject to all the same laws as everyone else? ANd I mean by introducing policies within the admin, and legislation within the Congress? Hope so.

Heh, how about Robert Reich? :)

He looked like Andre the Giant standing next to President Obama this morning. And Barack towered over McCain.

McCain would look like Mini-Me next to Volker.

True. And he’s been behaving like an adult since he took over.

Some are afraid this move will support the myth that only Republicans can do national security, but that’s so 1980.