It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Yes the President appoints, and congress confirms, and they can rake the nominee over the coals until they wish they were dead. That's what will happen. It can go on for months. And it will.




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
NM

I'll withdraw the statements.

edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder why those 'assault weapons' of their day are called GUNS by modern society.

Arms are guns.

For someone that has claimed to have read the constitution sure has no clue what it says.



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Care to try again ?

Never mind.

I am still getting trolled though I don't know why.
edit on 13-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96


The word "property" is in the Constitution and it refers to the property of the United States.



Where do you get this stuff?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The Fourteenth Amendment???

That one must have burned.

You have a point. I was referring to the body of the Constitution, but you are right.

Thank you for standing up for the Fourteenth Neo!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96


The word "property" is in the Constitution and it refers to the property of the United States.



Where do you get this stuff?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...




The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...


Perhaps you would highlight "property" in that ... which is a prohibition on illegal search.

(Besides, Neo beat you to the punch. The Fourteenth Amendment does refer to "property." I've ceded the point because I was not precise in my original statement. Nice try though.)
edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So when it say 'bear arms' are you trying to say the COTUS gives us all the right to amputate grizzly bears and flail their limbs in the air?


Like they just don't care!


(sorry, couldn't resist)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I've seen many posts across social media by liberals talking about civil war if Obama nominees are not confirmed.

Fantasies about the "Marines killing hillbillies", and the national guard arresting all republicans.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: vor78
For any Senator to say that they will act to block the President's power and CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to appoint a new Justice no matter who it is ... borders on treason.


How hyperbolic.


President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.


Guess who said that? He was a darling of the Dems. A lion, some said.


You seem to have a problem with the difference between what someone says and what you think they mean.

Please quote Kennedy stating that any nominee of Reagan's would be denied by the Senate. Do you have that link?
edit on 13-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I personally don't think it will, I think the republicans are spineless, but I do hope it does go on.

There is nothing unconstitutional in denying a candidate for supreme court until one comes along that the senate thinks can do the job.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Undoubtedly, it will. Ultimately, its up to the voters to decide which side has the right of it.

And lets also not lose sight of something here. The Supreme Court still has eight justices and it can still function more or less normally, though with the potential for a deadlock...which merely defaults to the lower court ruling. It needs to be filled, obviously, but its not a crisis if it takes longer than normal.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: xuenchen

I've seen many posts across social media by liberals talking about civil war if Obama nominees are not confirmed.

Fantasies about the "Marines killing hillbillies", and the national guard arresting all republicans.





How unlike what is seen from the right-wing!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Left wingers sure love to burn it when it doubles down on the preceding amendments the second,fourth,fifth,sixth,seventh, and ninth, and tenth,and fourtenth amendments that all deal with gun control.

Ya know a person actually has to be charged with a CRIME before their rights can be INFRINGED.

That 14th amendment especially gets burned when Sanders whines about rich people, and people actively support taking away their property. Their LIBERTY.

Because the mob says it's ok.

Contrary to the popular DOGMA I stand up for the constitution more than a 'liberal' does.

Which is exactly why i am critical of the next scotus appointment, and a potus that willfully,wantingly wants to circumvent it.

edit on 13-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Except far more entertaining considering liberal millennials abhor military service, most of them don't know the first thing about firearms, and none have the fortitude required for war.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96


The word "property" is in the Constitution and it refers to the property of the United States.



Where do you get this stuff?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...




The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...


Perhaps you would highlight "property" in that ... which is a prohibition on illegal search.

(Besides, Neo beat you to the punch. The Fourteenth Amendment does refer to "property." I've ceded the point because I was not precise in my original statement. Nice try though.)


Can you be more obtuse? First you can't understand that 'arms' means guns, then you can't admit that 'houses, papers, and effects' means property. The Founders wrote in the language of 18th century colonial America. To distort the reality of vocabulary like this takes willing ignorance on the part of the reader, or someone who doesn't study history and foolishly believes the Founders wrote in 21st century English. Which are you?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

but they don't even know who that candidate is yet, and they are denying!!! that's the problem. how do they know if the candidate can do the job adequately or not if they have no idea who it is. what they did was express their intention of leaving that post empty, it doesn't matter who obama offers as a candidate.... hey, I got an idea, let's decrease the number of justices down to five, fire a few of them, that will eliminate the chance of there being a tie and also save us some money! and we can eliminate them so that we have the same balance as we did before...which means kennedy can't go. there's solves the problem, now there isn't any position to fight over...
my, god, kids!!!


edit on 13-2-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Regardless, I forsee the communication lines into the offices of Senators up for reelection in November 2016 will be imploding over the next few months.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Oh yes, I forget the whole Constitution is really about guns, er, arms.

Not only do people have to be charged, they have to be convicted before significant rights can be permanently suspended.

You know, that whole "due process" thing you were just so excited to find? Yeah.

You may remember that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 specifically gives Congress the power to tax.

Although you like to suggest that all taxes are theft, that has no Constitutional basis.

Stand up for the Constitution? Your take on it maybe. /shrug



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: xuenchen

I've seen many posts across social media by liberals talking about civil war if Obama nominees are not confirmed.

Fantasies about the "Marines killing hillbillies", and the national guard arresting all republicans.





Of course they would talk about civil war.

Government would fight it for them.

We know they sure wouldn't.

It would involve too much work.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

but they don't even know who that candidate is yet, and they are denying!!!


No. They said they would deny. They haven't turned anyone down for the position yet.




. . .that's the problem. how do they know if the candidate can do the job adequately or not if they have no idea who it is. what they did was express their intention of leaving that post empty, it doesn't matter who obama offers as a candidate.... hey, I got an idea, let's decrease the number of justices down to five, fire a few of them, that will eliminate the chance of there being a tie and also save us some money! and we can eliminate them so that we have the same balance as we did before...which means kennedy can't go. there's solves the problem, now there isn't any position to fight over...
my, god, kids!!!



It may be childish, ignorant, asinine, pick any adjective you want.

But it isn't unconstitutional.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join