Jesse Jackson Jr. Should Resign; and if He Doesn’t Should be he be Thrown Out of Congress?
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
The Daily Caller has completely and irredeemably discredited Jesse Jackson Jr. and demonstrated he was utterly unfit for office. How did they do this? The sneakiest way possible: by giving him a microphone and inviting him to talk. Very clever…
“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
“President Obama tends to idealize — and rightfully so — Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function,” Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.
“On several occasions now, we’ve seen … the Congress is in rebellion, determined, as Abraham Lincoln said, to wreck or ruin at all costs. I believe … in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head, some more than $40,000, some less than $40,000 — that’s a $600 billion stimulus. It could be a five-year program. For another $104 billion, we bailout all of the states … for another $100 billion, we bailout all of the cities,” he said.
Jackson added that his $804 billion stimulus plan is the only way to solve the unemployment crisis. “I support the jobs plan. I support the president’s re-election. I support Barack Obama,” he said. “But at this hour, we need a plan that meets the size and scope of the problem to put the American people to work.”
“We’ve got to go further. I support what [Obama] does. Clearly, Republicans are not going to be for it but if the administration can handle administratively what can be done, we should pursue it. And if there are extra-constitutional opportunities that allow the president administratively to put the people to work, he should pursue every single one of them,” Jackson suggested.
Do read the whole thing, here. Of course another word for “extra-constitutional” is “unconstitutional.” Really it is hard to know which is more appalling—his ignorance of history or of the Constitution. As Glenn Reynolds writes:
Two thoughts; (1) He should resign for this statement, which constitutes an abnegation of his oath of office; and (2) Just a reminder — those Confederate Rebels were Democrats, mostly. Trouble with item (1) is that if contempt for the Constitution were grounds for leaving Congress, we’d hardly have a Congress. But still . . . A pathetic example of today’s pathetic political class.
Of course there is a world of difference between a person having a minor disagreement about what the Constitution actually means, or even advocating a relatively minor breach of the Constitution, and advocating a complete overthrow of this government in favor of a dictatorship, which is what Mr. Jackson has proposed.
But let me throw out a question to the peanut gallery. The oath of office for a Congressman reads as follows (expand third item to read):
“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Clearly he has violated it. Is that a cause for removal from office?
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Yeppers,hang him for treason.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:22 pmPer Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution: “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.”
There are not likely to be two-thirds of the House who would vote for Jackson’s removal. More generally, see this Congressional Research Service report, including this summary (at page ii, italics in original):
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:22 pmI thought tthis guy was about to be booted anyway – what happened to that?
EricPWJohnson (e83e82) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:33 pmThis is going to happen. It’s just a matter of when.
It disgusts me, but politics in this country swings like a pendulum, and the left will have enough power to do this one day.
It amounts to stealing from Texas and other states that fight hard to balance their budgets with tough cuts, such as cuts to education. And they are stealing in order to pay for union pensions, often in the millions of dollars, and other corruption such as we see in Illinois, the home of the scummiest politics in the country.
But it’s going to happen.
The only way to prove me wrong is a balanced budget amendment. Even then, it’s only a strong protection rather than a total solution.
Even without the bailout, the more the country inflates our dollars, the more of your money is devalued in order to reduce the force of the debt. You are being robbed blind every single day.
As to Aaron’s question, I think undeniably he has violated his oath, however he would be defended by the race hustle.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:33 pmI’m reading Dick Cheney’s “In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir. From the chapter about his service as Wyoming’s sole Congressman (at pp. 132-33, bracketed portion and italics mine):
Here, too, Rep. Jackson’s voters have long known exactly what they were getting. Fidelity to the Constitution isn’t their top priority, else they would have chosen someone else. If they want Bozo the Clown as their representative in Congress, that’s their right as a practical matter; and if these latest shenanigans from Rep. Jackson persuade them that he’s no longer fit, he’ll not be reelected. (Not holding my breath for that either.)
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:36 pmSorry, that link I left in #2 above apparently is busted, so perhaps this one will work.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:37 pmDustin (#4): The great political question when it comes to state-level bankruptcies is not whether they will happen, but rather, whether “the debtor will be left in possession,” as the bankruptcy lawyers say, or whether instead there will be a congressionally or judicially appointed receiver/trustee.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:40 pmBeldar, that’s interesting.
The idea of a trustee imposing a successful government’s system over a failed one, such as Texas’s entire domestic spending system being imposed over fiscally unsound states like California, is both delicious and abhorrent from a state’s rights POV.
Not that this is exactly what you’re saying, but what’s a trustee supposed to do with a bankrupt state?
These democrat run states show no interest in actually running the huge surpluses they need to realistically pay off the proverbial credit card. Nor does the federal government.
I honestly think the plan here is to ride this out until the boomers die off, laughing as the blank check bounces.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:54 pmWouldn’t a receiver/trustee overruling a state’s government violate the Constitutional provision that all states shall have a republican form of government?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:56 pmI will again give money to whoever runs against Houston’s version of Rep. Jackson, the Right Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee. It will again be only a symbolic donation, Ms. Jackson-Lee’s life sinecure being effectively guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as interpreted by the federal courts to make impossible any redistricting that might threaten her Dem-gerrymandered majority-minority district. The Gentlelady from Houston’s knowledge of and fidelity to the Constitution make Rep. Jackson look like James Madison by comparison.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 2:58 pmChuck (#9): That’s a good question, isn’t it? One of many we don’t know the answer to, and one we’re not even such which branch of the federal government — if any — should be consulted about.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:00 pmExactly, Chuck.
These states should be able to run their affairs however they like. The only problem is that some want to correct the terrible results in blue states. Or more to the point: they want those pensions and entitlement programs.
We are already bailing out states.]
You and I are already paying for Romneycare even if we live in Texas. Which stings because I’ve been saying that kind of plan would lose tons of money for years.
Jesse Jr is basically saying ‘yeah, you red states were right. Now pay anyway’.
And if Republicans are going to do that, it’s pure insanity to do so without forcing upon blue states reforms that go so far beyond what’s acceptable under the constitution, or what is politically realistic, that I hardly can think of them.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:00 pmBeldar – SEIU, NEA, and AFSCME will be given possession.
JD (318f81) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:01 pmHe should be embarrassed, if for nothing else, than form his horrific grasp of math.
JD (318f81) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:03 pm“one we’re not even such which branch of the federal government — if any — should be consulted about” —- should read —> “one we’re not even sure which branch of the federal government — if any — should be consulted about.”
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:03 pmIt’s interesting how this kind of anti federalism is taken for granted, but any anti federalism in a conservative direction (yeah, oxymoron) is ridiculous for me to contemplate.
Anyway, I wanted to ask, when you say
do you envision some entity other than the feds settling a state bankruptcy or bailout? Serious question. I suspect there’s a lot I haven’t thought of on this topic.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:04 pmOh, never mind. I understand you now, Beldar.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:04 pmJD (#13): They’re in possession now, for all practical purposes.
I don’t think there’s going to be any non-federal DIP financing available. No sane lender, even of last resort, would accept anything like the real risks posed by exposure to California’s unfunded liabilities.
But yeah, the Democrats in Congress will fight to maintain the transparent fiction that California has a functioning state government. It will be very odd to watch them try to cloak themselves in federalism as they do so, but they will. The question is whether they can maintain the fiction even after martial law has to be declared and the California National Guard is federalized to put down the insurrections, organized civil disobedience, and anarchy.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:08 pmhe didn’t honor is marriage vows either
this is mostly cause he’s a dirty slut
but it also speaks to his integrity I think
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:09 pm*his* marriage vows I mean
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:09 pmBeldar – I just meant that they would strip away the pretense, and just acknowledge that the unions own them.
JD (318f81) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:11 pmThe $64,000 Question becomes: what if Congress ( or the Executive branch) imposes a receiver on a state? Who’d have standing to challenge it in court?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:15 pmDustin: I’m hoping Paul Ryan and his minions are thinking about, and planning for, this exact problem even now.
The way it probably ought to be handled is through custom-tailored congressional legislation enacted at the request of a president who’s actually leading public opinion; said legislation would modify the existing bankruptcy laws, precedents, and rules for municipal bankruptcies (including responsible trusteeships) to clarify how state bankruptcies are to be handled transparently and according to the rule of law; and then some special-purpose bankruptcy court or panel, subject to limited Article III review by a special-purpose federal appellate court (not the Ninth Circuit!), all enacted with strict sunset (self-expiration) provisions.
Write the whole thing to create standing and a right to challenge its constitutionality on the part of every State and any member of Congress, said challenge to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within 30 days after passage, with direct and mandatory appeal to the SCOTUS to be accomplished within 120 days. Nothing severable; it all goes back for re-balancing and re-write if any of it is held unconstitutional (which I don’t think it would be if it were done properly).
That’s my take. No one has hired me to start writing the legislation, but I’m available — at my regular hourly rates. 🙂
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:17 pmThe main (but not exclusive) constitutional peg for my proposal would be Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, giving Congress power “To establish … uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:21 pmDon’t throw out “Be“! We like Be.
What did Be ever do to you, anyway?
Icy (666709) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:21 pmWhat we’re likely to get instead — especially if Obama is reelected, but under any other Dem government as well — would look much more like the Chrysler/GM/AIG bailouts and TARP, with more of the “too big to fail” excuse. Winners and losers selected not on the basis of law or contract, but on the basis of partisan politics and class warfare. And yeah, then we’ll all be paying for California’s half-million dollar-a-year prison guards and $750k civic administrators and all the rest.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:24 pmHere’s another way to look at it: California and perhaps a handful of other states (Illinois is a good bet, too) are going to be turned into vast District-of-Columbia analogs.
Beldar (d43951) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:26 pmJJJ (or “Trips”, as he is known in Chicago) just a couple weeks ago got a strong announced Dem primary opponent, Debbie Halvorson. Due to the redistricting the district will have a slightly different racial composition than before, which some thought might give Debbie a slight chance to unseat him. Trips has never been all that well liked or respected in these parts even by most Dems. (His mistress, his mess with Blago over Obama’s senate seat, his sense of family entitlement, his all hat no cattle-ness in congress, etc.)
Today, his “extra-constitutional” remarks are the talk of the town on local radio, TV and political blogs. As one blogger put it–Trips is tripping! He is getting jeers and hoots. He is getting no support from any quarter. If the congressional ethics committee doesn’t get him first, or if he doesn’t resign, he may have just handed the seat to Debbie Halvorson on a silver platter. Here is her press release:
“In Rep. Jackson’s entire congressional career, he has never introduced a single jobs bill,” said Halvorson. “Now, he’s calling on the President to suspend the constitution? As a representative of the people, you don’t give up when you hit a roadblock and throw the constitution out the window – you keep working to get something done. The people of the 2nd district deserve real leadership, not rhetoric.”
elissa (27977e) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:26 pmSorry, fat chance. Jackson won re-election with 80% of the vote in 2010 and remember this was with the Blago Senate seat fiasco hanging over his head which has largely died down for now. His district is primarily black.
We will be living with JJ.Jr and his ilk for a long long time. The only way to get rid of him would be through term limits or sensible re-districting neither of which will be likely any time soon. To paraphrase Paddy Bauler, a long ago Chicago Alderman, Illinois ain’t ready for reform.
Ipso Fatso (74cbec) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:33 pmHaving lived in Illinois all my life, I didn’t think I could be surprised by our politicians’ stupidity, but this one did it. I’m still trying to figure out what he means by Congress in rebellion. Is he advocating martial law? Does he even know what martial law is?
rochf (f3fbb0) — 10/13/2011 @ 3:56 pmOK…I’m gonna shake things up a bit. Generally speaking, I agree…he’s a buffoon, in violation of the constitution, and needs to go.
At the same time, though, he expresses a thought that many on the right (I’m sure I’ve said it, thick with sarcasm) are thinking when all this “stimulus” $$ is being shoveled at Obama’s cronies: “Well, geez, it would be much better spent by giving each American $xx,xxx instead of picking winners and losers.”
RB (890639) — 10/13/2011 @ 4:06 pmI thought being ignorant was a feature of democrat politicians. Now you say they should resign or be removed because of it?
kansas (313837) — 10/13/2011 @ 4:41 pmYa know they call themselves liberals but these leftys are not.
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/13/2011 @ 4:45 pmRaaaaaaaaaaaacists!!!! All of youse!
ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 10/13/2011 @ 5:09 pmYou only want to do this because he is a brother scapegoat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Eleventy
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/13/2011 @ 5:18 pmHmmm. Let us put this in perspective.
Frank, Dodd, and others lie to the rest of Congress and cover while Freddie and Fanny are taking on water and throw the US into a financial crisis.
DOJ Holder, need I say more?
And last, we elected as president and let him take the oath after he had already made clear he thought the Constitution was a flawed and inadequate document. In my mind, why would I expect someone to uphold a document they don’t respect?
And as a postscript, Bill Clinton did not have to quit and was not fired when any other male in the US would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town for the same behavior.
To take action against Jackson, Jr. would be out of character for our country.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/13/2011 @ 5:22 pmyou make a very good point there, MD.
ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 10/13/2011 @ 5:26 pmThank you, Colonel.
I must interrupt for an OT interjection. In that little advertisement scroll display up on the R side is a story about Frances Fox Piven speaking at a Christian college, the link is http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/10/13/christian-college-students-react-to-radical-professor-frances-fox-piven%e2%80%99s-address/
I’m not exactly sure how to react. She speaks of her concern about the rise of “propaganda” organized “like a machine” that makes it difficult for individuals to understand the “complicated” things in our economic-political [something or other]. She gives as examples Fox News and “the intimidation of the major media”, being “called names like pinko”….
Is she so “epistemologically closed minded” that she does not realize what she is saying, or is she an arrogant, devious, and wicked person willfully trying to deceive?
She gets a reaction when she describes the Tea Party as people who are afraid of a non-white president (or some such).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/13/2011 @ 5:48 pmShe knows Beck and others, ‘cracked’ her codebook,
ian cormac (0fc95f) — 10/13/2011 @ 5:54 pmso naturally she’s verklempt at this realization,
That’s what I predict, and indeed, that’s actually what I expect the GOP establishment will want. That’s why the primaries are a time when all patriotic Americans should try to wrestle control of this party away from the idiots. A GOP that says no to such a bailout is a critical piece of the puzzle of how to get out of the mess we’re in as a country.
MD citing Piven should remind us that this unsustainable path is no accident.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 6:02 pmCan a cracka get some help here?
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/13/2011 @ 6:59 pmPiven is a big supporter of open borders. And, apparently, so is Rick Perry.
ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 10/13/2011 @ 7:16 pmDemocracy sure is inconvenient to Democrats.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2011 @ 7:23 pmThat’s quite a video expose of the woman who, with her partner in crime Cloward, thought she could bring America and our system of government to its knees through abuse of the “safety net”/welfare system.
The old bag.
ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 10/13/2011 @ 7:25 pmIf bailed out States were turned into DC analogs, could their Congressional delegations get identical status?
For example, the States rights conflicts could be avoided by returning them to Territories and make them re-apply for Statehood after their financial houses are again in order.
With California and Illinois (and New York – ?!) out of Congress, it would seem that Republicans would strongly control both Houses.
jim2 (afe2f4) — 10/13/2011 @ 7:37 pmAnd yet you are complaining that I am employing disinformation.
Mitt Romney never lifted a finger to shut down MA’s sanctuary cities, and he even employed illegal aliens to cut his lawn, was caught, and then months later hired the same company with more illegals to cut his lawn.
He imposed a single anti illegal immigration measure, and this was in 2007 after he decided to run for the GOP nomination. The measure never even went into effect, because he did it mere days before his term ended.
Perry, on the other hand, has used emergency session powers to attempt to ban sanctuary cities in Texas, and has sent state law enforcement and resources at great expense to control Texas’s border with Mexico.
The facts are not on your side, Haiku. Time for you to claim I’m lying and throw in some childish insults now.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 7:43 pmThe only way to prove me wrong is a balanced budget amendment. Even then, it’s only a strong protection rather than a total solution.
Dustin, California has a balanced budget requirement, fat lot of good it does. What we need is a spending cap amendment, not a balanced budget amendment. Something like: “The annual expenditures of the United States shall not exceed 20% of the average GDP of the prior 3 years, unless authorized, for a single year, by a 2/3rds vote of each House.”
Kevin M (563f77) — 10/13/2011 @ 8:13 pmYeah, you have a very strong point.
That sounds great too, but I firmly believe we need a balanced budget amendment.
California’s entire process, including their amendment, is a great example of how not to do it, but there are cases where a balanced budget amendment actually works extremely well.
Texas, for example. Since we know it works if done a certain way, I think that’s a pretty good recipe.
Regardless, I agree with you that we need an amendment of some kind to take a firm line reigning in spending.
If we had an amendment such as you’re suggesting, I think we would be a much more stable country.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 8:25 pmThe left:
“We could have gotten away with it except for that meddling Constitution.”
Ag80 (bae7ed) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:01 pmRomney is an amnesty supporter.
Jeesh if Mitt Romney threw a flagpole through your stomach you’d give him a thumbs up as you bleed out and die.
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:08 pmDohbiden, well done.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:10 pmThanks uh i think.
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:12 pmA “Democrat” advocating tyranny?
Color me surprised!
Not.
Dave Surls (d15a60) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:21 pmSo if Romney supports Jessie Jackwagon Jr is he down with the sturggle?
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:22 pmNo sarcasm. I thought that was very funny.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/13/2011 @ 9:49 pmJ.J. Jr. Kid dyn-o-mite!!!
Icy (6e3e79) — 10/13/2011 @ 10:57 pmJr. has now attained the exhalted level that Sr. reached with his “Hymietown” bleet.
Chicago Dems should be proud to draw to this pair.
Even if he resigned, the fools back in his District would just re-elect him (even if they had to do it by a write-in), just as Adam Clayton Powell’s District re-elected him after his expulsion.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (85da3b) — 10/13/2011 @ 11:27 pmYes. He should be impeached (or recalled, depending) for breach of his oath.
mojo (8096f2) — 10/14/2011 @ 7:59 amEverything would be just peachy if the guvmint will just print and then spend another $804 billion of our money that it does not have?
Why it’s so simple even a
cavemancongressman from illinois could think it up.[I denounce myself for any and everything racist that I may have typed above]
Icy (6e3e79) — 10/14/2011 @ 8:14 amPiven is a big supporter of open borders. And, apparently, so is Rick Perry.
I think Perry is being given a bum rap here. Few people seem to realize the difference between Texas and California, for example. The Texas government is funded by Sales tax. Spending is much lower then California for education and Medicaid. The history of Texas is different, as well. Mexicans were part of the revolt against Mexico when Texas gained its independence. As a result, illegals are not the drain on state coffers that they are in California or other states that rely on income tax. When they purchase things, they are contributing to the state economy just like legal residents.
Illegal immigration is not the problem for Texas that it is in California. Open borders is another issue with national security concerns but the illegal issue is just not the same for Texas.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 10/14/2011 @ 9:05 amWhy won’t the wall street protesters occupy Paul Krugmans house?
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/14/2011 @ 9:06 amComment by Kevin M — 10/13/2011 @ 8:13 pm
CA had a spending restriction (the Gann Amendment?), but the Dems controlling the legislature found a work-around, and gutted it shortly after it was passed by the people.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (436737) — 10/14/2011 @ 10:07 amIf that limitation had still been in effect, the budget imbalances that led to the recall of Gray Davis would have (most likely) never occurred.
Comment by DohBiden — 10/14/2011 @ 9:06 am
Krugman has effective private security?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (436737) — 10/14/2011 @ 10:09 amHow do you know that he said “…extra-constitutional…” and not “…extra, constitutional…”?
Kman (62888f) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:01 amBecause, kmart, he didn’t (like you) have his head up his butt.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (436737) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:06 amOh, I see. He can’t be mocked unless you screw with the punctuation.
If he was talking about “extra-constitutional” opportunities, hen wouldn’t have used the word verb “allow”.
Also, if you actually LOOK at the interview, he used the phrase “extraordinary constitutional opportunities” moments earlier.
A child can tell what Jackson Jr. was saying. But hacks rule here, apparently.
Kman (62888f) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:11 amKman, why would Jesse be talking about Lincoln going beyond the constitution, and otherwise talking about how it’s a special emergency justifying doing something drastic on?
Your interpretation seems insincere.
Do you personally think Jesse Jr was asking us to restrain our bailouts to what is constitutional? He’s got a funny way of backing up such an argument.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:13 amYou don’t really believe this was a bad faith transcription.
Last time I attempted to comment at your blog, you had shut down comments because people disagreed with you. Yet you called this blog an echo chamber.
Instead of an argument, you have personal insults. As usual, the guy with the personal insults is projecting.
His entire speech is about doing more, and how it’s an emergency, and we can’t be restrained because it’s similar to the times of Lincoln, who famously went beyond the constitution (I don’t know that you have an education, so perhaps you’re not aware of this).
The term extra-constitutional does not make any sense in that context if he’s saying we should stay within the constitution and the situation is not extreme enough to justify going farther.
You are being silly. And I love it every time you do this.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:17 amDustin:
He gave an example of “extra” constitutional things that Obama could do.
And did he or did he not use the phrase “extraordinary constitutional” earlier?
Kman (62888f) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:21 amHe did.
And he meant extra-constitutional.
LOL. He named Obama’s jobs plan and various other things, and then said we have a crisis and he wants to go farther, just like Lincoln did.
Why Lincoln? Because Lincoln went beyond the constitution.
He gives examples of constitutional things, and then says ‘but, we need to do more’.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:25 amAnd he wasn’t talking about Lincoln as an historical parallel to going outside the constitution. Did he specifically mention anything that Lincoln did that was outside the constitution?
He was talking about Lincoln as an historical parallel to states (now Congress) being in rebellion.
Kman (62888f) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:26 amYes, “we need to do more” than what Obama is doing — he says that after he talks about what Obama is doing. But he doesn’t say “we need to do more” with respect to what the constitution allows.
Kman (62888f) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:28 amKman illusrates the hypocrisy of Democrats and their apologists today. Democracy sure is inconvenient to Democrats.
SPQR (bd5c72) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:42 amIsn’t it fortunate for them, in light of their distaste for democracy, that we live in a Republic?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (436737) — 10/14/2011 @ 11:43 am“Few people seem to realize the difference between Texas and California…”
California is the place with better weather.
Texas is the place that hasn’t gone communist (yet).
Dave Surls (b4401c) — 10/14/2011 @ 12:20 pm“It could be a five-year program.”–J. Jackoff, Jr.
I think you mean “five-year plan”, comrade. And, it would work about as well as they used to work in the old Soviet Union, which is STILL a poverty stricken hellhole many years after the fall of the system Demtards, like Jackoff, love so much.
Dave Surls (b4401c) — 10/14/2011 @ 12:26 pmI’m still trying to figure how Congress can be in rebellion.
Actually, I do know what he meant, and it’s rather telling that he can call vigorous opposition within the system “rebellion”.
It is rather amazing. It’s as if Democratic politicians have organized a scheme whose goal is to drive as many intelligent people as possible out of the Democratic party because they’re disgusted with the party apparatchiks.
JBS (437df2) — 10/14/2011 @ 12:38 pmKmart aka Mrs Doubtfire is completely infatuated with AW. It is creepy. It’s parsing and douchebqggery are legend.
JD (318f81) — 10/14/2011 @ 12:49 pmOkay, K-Pax, here is your big chance:
A) Do YOU believe that everything Junior proposed fits within the definition of what is constitutional?
B) If YES, will you please describe in detail how this is the case?
Icy (6e3e79) — 10/14/2011 @ 1:43 pmUnrelated but: Whatever happened to commenter nk?
Ipso Fatso (74cbec) — 10/14/2011 @ 2:05 pmAt least Jackson’s stupidity can’t be blamed on Harvard or Yale or Columbia.
ErisGuy (7ba3f6) — 10/16/2011 @ 4:29 amNot surprisingly, Kman ONCE AGAIN has spewed an ad hom and then run away. Pathetic.
Icy (still a Texan -- until the end of the month) (6e1416) — 10/16/2011 @ 6:19 amDistinguo. The constitution doesn’t require members of Congress to be honest, or forbid them from committing crimes. If the people of a district knowingly elect a felon to represent them, one can plausibly argue that that is their right, and that it would be wrong of the House to frustrate their will. But the constitution does require that congressmen swear an oath of loyalty to it; and this requirement can’t be a mere formality. Someone who is not loyal to the constitution, or who has “mental reservation or purpose of evasion” in taking the oath to support it, is ineligible to serve; and the people of his district are not entitled to have him represent them however much they may wish it. Imagine a Tory district in 1789 electing a declared monarchist, or an antifederalist, who was committed to abolishing the constitution by means other than those allowed in Section 5; would the first House have seated him? Or imagine a congressman who, having sworn that “I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”, explicitly tells an interviewer that he was lying; on what basis can one claim that the people of his district are entitled to have him represent them? It may be that they agree with him, but they are not entitled to have that view represented. Like it or not, if they wish to be represented they must elect someone who disagrees with them. That’s the constitution.
Milhouse (d3fd53) — 10/16/2011 @ 12:49 pmA condition of bankruptcy protection should be giving up statehood and reverting to territory status.
Milhouse (d3fd53) — 10/16/2011 @ 12:50 pmKam and AW are doomed to a bad bromance.
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/16/2011 @ 1:12 pmKman*
DohBiden (d54602) — 10/16/2011 @ 1:22 pmUm, depending on what? Members of Congress can be neither impeached nor recalled.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 10/17/2011 @ 5:32 am