Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 107

Thread: Nasty Nancy claims it's right to refuse to seat legally-elected members of Congress

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,438
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 3,499 Times in 2,837 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Most of the members who have been removed from Congress occurred during the Civil War for those who kept their federal office while also holding positions in the Confederacy. But those members were removed by a 2/3 vote of the House or Senate, not by the Speaker.

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    24,491
    Thanks
    10,489
    Thanked 13,027 Times in 8,998 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,164 Times in 1,097 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    The Constitution says differently, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." In other words, the House can judge its own election. Pelosi has been willing to provisionally seat Miller-Meeks, which is very gracious of her. Now the House will judge the election.

    In general, Congress does not like overturning the election decisions of the states, so Hart has an uphill battle. That being said, she has every right to make that uphill battle.
    Having lost by 1/2 dozen votes, she's demanding that 22 votes that were previously discounted be verified.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    88,687
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    if she tried to act upon her stupid opinion......
    Does anyone doubt that she will?

  4. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    2,912
    Thanks
    1,543
    Thanked 1,594 Times in 1,057 Posts
    Groans
    146
    Groaned 151 Times in 148 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    don't be silly.....
    I was wrong on that. But she can remove her through her office as speaker and control of her Party, she only needs justification which will not be long in coming. Thought I needed to clear that up before going Silent here.

  5. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    88,687
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GASPER View Post
    She can remove her through her office as speaker and control of her Party, she only needs justification which will not be long in coming.
    The U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

  6. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    51,698
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CASPER View Post
    I was wrong on that. But she can remove her through her office as speaker and control of her Party, she only needs justification which will not be long in coming. Thought I needed to clear that up before going Silent here.
    what do you think the states reaction is going to be if she does that?
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  7. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    110,019
    Thanks
    9,042
    Thanked 31,620 Times in 25,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,036
    Groaned 2,402 Times in 2,292 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CASPER View Post
    I was wrong on that. But she can remove her through her office as speaker and control of her Party, she only needs justification which will not be long in coming. Thought I needed to clear that up before going Silent here.
    and you are wrong again........the House could, Nancy can't.........if she tries to remove her simply because she's a Republican it will just be another NancyDance like we saw against Trump.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  8. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    88,687
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    and you are wrong again........the House could, Nancy can't.........if she tries to remove her simply because she's a Republican it will just be another NancyDance like we saw against Trump.....
    Powell v. McCormack (1969)

  9. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    16,053
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 6,003 Times in 4,164 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 1,704 Times in 1,572 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    would that include calling someone an insurrectionist who has had no trial or conviction?
    Calling an insurrectionist what he is would be protected under the First Amendment. If we cannot call criminals what they are, without a trial and conviction, then we can never have a trial to begin with. Under English Common Law, which the Constitution says we adopted, we have a right to make allegations, before conviction. It is how the system works.

  10. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    16,053
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 6,003 Times in 4,164 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 1,704 Times in 1,572 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    silly demmycunt.....the constitution doesn't give her the power to lie about the elections......
    There is a question about how much right the Constitution gives to lie, with Republicans arguing a lot of right to lie, and Democrats arguing that it is more limited. I would personally worry about too much restriction on lying, because who is the government to say what is a lie.

    Anyway, Hart has not lied. She is not going around making bizarre claims that she cannot repeat in court. There is a real question about 22 lawful ballots that were not counted in a race that she lost by 6 votes. She has every right to legally contest that. It is not like she is having her supporters storm the Capitol Building.

    Pelsoi realizes that Hart's challenge is an uphill battle, so to be fair allowed Miller-Meeks to be provisionally seated. Pelosi's fairness to a Republican was, as always, slapped back in her face.

  11. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    38,039
    Thanks
    13,583
    Thanked 22,425 Times in 15,671 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 550 Times in 527 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    The "tweet source" I rely on is the US Constitution. You should look at it some time.

    The Supreme Court did not decide the Constitution no longer applied. The House still has the right to judge their own elections, returns, and qualifications.
    Every time you post you just cement the fact that you know jack shit about anything. I am talking full fucking retard here.
    Consider the Oyster.

    C-4 is just angry playdoh.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Sailor For This Post:

    PostmodernProphet (03-29-2021)

  13. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    88,687
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Every time you post you just cement the fact that you know jack shit about anything. I am talking full fucking retard here.

    It's plain as day, Cap'n.

  14. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    110,019
    Thanks
    9,042
    Thanked 31,620 Times in 25,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,036
    Groaned 2,402 Times in 2,292 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There is a question about how much right the Constitution gives to lie, with Republicans arguing a lot of right to lie, and Democrats arguing that it is more limited. I would personally worry about too much restriction on lying, because who is the government to say what is a lie.

    Anyway, Hart has not lied. She is not going around making bizarre claims that she cannot repeat in court. There is a real question about 22 lawful ballots that were not counted in a race that she lost by 6 votes. She has every right to legally contest that. It is not like she is having her supporters storm the Capitol Building.

    Pelsoi realizes that Hart's challenge is an uphill battle, so to be fair allowed Miller-Meeks to be provisionally seated. Pelosi's fairness to a Republican was, as always, slapped back in her face.
    Pelosi's name isn't Hart, dumbfuck......this thread is about Nancy's lies.....Hart has already lost in court......Nancy wants to ignore that and make her own rules.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Sailor (03-29-2021)

  16. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    35,688
    Thanks
    21,052
    Thanked 11,820 Times in 9,146 Posts
    Groans
    4,176
    Groaned 1,203 Times in 1,103 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Anonymous View Post
    Treason.

  17. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    38,039
    Thanks
    13,583
    Thanked 22,425 Times in 15,671 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 550 Times in 527 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    It's plain as day, Cap'n.
    It truly is Legion.
    Consider the Oyster.

    C-4 is just angry playdoh.

Similar Threads

  1. Nasty Nancy in the news
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-25-2020, 05:12 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-12-2019, 04:16 PM
  3. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 11-19-2018, 02:51 PM
  4. Restaurants Can Legally Refuse to Serve Trump Officials Like Sarah Sanders
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-27-2018, 11:31 AM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 10:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •