1 - 10 Next
Why does McCain have to "hang it up" in order for the voters to vote in a conservative? Won't they have that chance in the primaries if he runs again, just as they did in 2010. But instead they elected him over conservative J. D. Hayworth by more than 20%, which would be considered a landslide. Perhaps the voters of Arizona just don't want to vote in a conservative.
Just curious as to where in the Constitution you find a requirement that Congress pass a budget? After searching the Constitution, I have found such a requirement, nor even the word "budget."
I always find it interesting when those claiming to support the Constitution and the intent of the Founders but then make accusations of treason of a form the Founders never intended and specifically rejected in the Constitution. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, treason was well established in English common law; they did not have to set out a definition for it. But under English law, a charge of "treason" had been employed for the most drastic, "lawful" suppression of political opposition or the expression of ideas or beliefs distasteful to those in power. But the Framers did not want this and defined it within the Constitution. Madison wrote that, "As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it...." At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the treason clause was most praised for the reason that it prevented the use of treason trials as an instrument of political faction; and the link here to the omission of any provision similar to the charge of compassing seems clear. Judges have accordingly agreed that the mere expression of beliefs cannot be deemed "treason" within the constitutional definition. However, when someone advocates that anyone is guilty of treason because they disagree with his policies, it takes us back to the English definition of treason which was rejected by the Framers. Those who advocate for this have no respect for the Constitution or the intent of the Framers. If you want to uphold the Constitution, then uphold all of it, not just the parts you agree with or your interpretation of it.
So, I assume, if they win their primaries, that you will be voting for the Democrat?
Then we can put you in the Democrat column?
I must have missed the part about the poll being taken of just the party leaders. I thought the poll results were of Republican voters.
So if one of them is nominated, Hillary can count on your vote?
Then you are free to vote for the progressive Hillary!
You do know that the "Dream Act" was never passed by Congress, but was another of Obama's executive orders, don't you? Also, the processing of the applications for amesty, printing and mailing work permits, processing Social Security cards, all require government workers who must be paid fro appropriated government funds, as well as the paper, ink, computers, etc. All this could be defunded.
You do realize that Jefferson did not write the Constitution, nor was he at the convention, don't you?
1 - 10 Next