Obama's a joke to the world

You are correct, at this time know one has a chance. But down the road......yep still know one.

 

Picture 2016 . . . Hillary Clinton v. (fill in the blank Republican) I just might have to vote Republican.

 

My prediction is that someone will be inaugurated as President at the end of the election process.

Bold, daring and provocative, I know.. but the funny thing about the process is that whatever you're being told during it by the candidates becomes utter horse puckey once they get the clearance to know what's really going on. So the candidate you're going to get in office is going to do exactly what any other candidate would do given the same inputs. There may be some small differences here and there, but I refuse to believe (for example) that any sitting President dealing with 9/11 would have opted for a peaceful diplomatic process to solve the terrorist attacks. Maybe Iraq wouldn't have happened as quickly, but someone would have gotten the idea.

 

I think there's some real truth to that. The President may have opinions of one sort or another but Congress still makes the laws and everything gets negotiated toward the middle. Even nominating Supreme Court Justices hasn't been the same since Bork (did I spell that right?)

 

By 2016, Chelsea Clinton will be legally old enough to run for president.

 

Yes, you did.

 

I always get the impulse to stick a j in the middle (Bjork). Someone asked me once which job I'd create for myself if,
1) I had to actually work for a living and,
2) It had to be a job completely different than my current profession
My answer was that I'd be a journalist covering the Supreme Court. The details of the cases are fascinating (although sometimes disturbing). The legal arguments are complex yet based on fundamental principles. There are lots of personalities involved and, of course, there's always politics involved. Lot's of stuff has been written about the Supreme Court but for the casual reader I'd recommend "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Bob Woodward.
As for Bork, I think that roasting him was a mistake and it has come back and bit the Democrats on their butts on more than one occasion.

 

It doesn't matter which one of these elite puppets are elected, nothing will change and things will only get worse; not for the elite mind you, but for the rest of us.

Politics is a lot like the WWE. People root and protest about this in a way that demonstrates they've given themselves over to the fantasy of an unpredictable/favorable outcome, in an induced denial that the end game is scripted and connected to a cycle that repeats itself over and over again. It's akin to an addiction where the addict is wobbling over with needles sticking into his arms, yet vehemently denying that he has a problem, and then going out for his next score.

The United States is all but finished. The Constitution has just become a dinner mat for these control freak a-holes, as they seem hell bent to do whatever they want regardless of it, and regardless of the will of the American people.

I admire the hope-holding masses and their ability to hang on to the fantasy, but considering all the proven lies and open corruption that's happened right in front of our eyes with the political process and practically everything else our Government and its officers has dealt in and constantly lies like a rug about in just the last 10 1/2 years alone, I can't understand how anyone paying attention can believe that all of this is anything other than a complete and utter sham.

 

Yep that's so true...even old H Clinton and Obama violated the constitution openly and yet nothing happened. Very sad.

 

The article you've quoted was intended to prevent senators and elected officials from using the power within their positions to get themselves appointed to additional civil offices to further pad their incomes and spheres of influence while also an elected official. This behavior was rampant in Europe, especially in England and resulted in examples of feudal power consolidation.

It's not unconstitutional to resign one position for another.

 

Wait a sec

Article I, Section 6: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office … the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” Emoluments meaning salaries and benefits.)

Yep she and he violated it word for word

 

1. Actual Text of Article 1, Section 6 from Government Archives:

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 encreased 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.

2. Saxbe Fix: Saxbe fix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. If the Supreme Court hasn't struck this down in over 100-200 years of it being debated.. then um..

 

Please accept my correction of "100-200 years of being debated" to "50-100". More appropriate considering the history.

 

Still a violation....call it what you will. Supreme Court did not strike down Jim Crow for some time as well, did that make it ok?

 

So the answer is "yes, that makes it ok"

Here's why, your argument requires that socially relative ethics be mixed with Constitutional Law.

Ethics are ethics, law is law. While societal ethics influences the creation of and interpretation of law (especially when societal ethics change) once law is enacted, ethics have absolutely nothing to do with law.

So from a purely legal perspective as long as a law is in force it's "right".

Of course there are many who will disagree with my perspective. That's their right. It's mine to disagree.#

 

What should the penalty be for violating the U.S. Constitution?

 

You need to ask a slightly better question . . .

What should be the penalty if it is proven in court that someone (or organization) has violated the Constitution?

People violate the Constitution every day and they do it with impunity.

 

A perfect example of this is Roe v. Wade. The law allows abortions yet many people feel like that is unethical. But their ethical principals mean nothing when it comes to changing the law. Will the law ever change? Possibly. And at that point, another group of people will find that their ethical principals are being compromised by the law. It's just a small part of the mess that we call democracy.

 

You'll note that there are no penalties designated within the Constitution (save perhaps a literal interpretation of Treason edicts). However, there are an entire body of Federal and State laws written with the Federal and State Constitutions in mind that have prescriptive penalty recommendations assigned to offenders by the respective judicial branches.

The answer to your question is in the mundane legal lexicon, not the Federal Constitution.