Confirmation of panag as VP

[notyoueither]

This thread is going to silly now, and that is not appropriate.

[Panag]

hi ,

just here to take a look

its a great honor to see this thread , ......

panag > is speechless

anyway its a job with a great responsability and thanks to the people who have shown some feelings and emotions , ( both sides )

it looks now that one "panag" has to step out of the darkness of the basement

well guys and girls thanks again

have a nice day & merry X-mass

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Arnelos


Interestingly, I actually don't agree with your argument here (yeah, I know that doesn't help me, but that's beside the point). I think the Senate is perfectly within its rights to oppose a Vice Presidential choice or my Court appointments for political reasons. In either case (Court nominees or Vice Presidential nominees), if a nominee fails, I just forward another one and see if the Senate is willing to accept that one. I'll grant that this has the potential to get out of control if the Senate kills every single nominee I send them, but I find that possibility unlikely.

I was mainly referring to the change adopted in the new con regarding the VP. We were said: the VP must not be elected because a VP must have good relations with the President, and the best way is to have the President choosing the VP. That clearly means that, as far as the VP is concerned, all political reasons of choice are given up by the Senate. The approval by the Senate (I underline that an approval is not an election - incidentally, election means choice-) can only be a benediction by what the Senate says: I recognize that this guy is the VP nominated by the President, unless of course there are non political reasons to reject him, such as crimes previously committed, being French, or other horrible personal things.
If you let the Senate use political reasons to reject the VP-nominated, this approval becomes an election, but an election where the citizens were not allowed to be candidate, which is contrary to the constitution. But the worst is that it deprives the President of the freedom of choice that the change was supposed to grant him.

I did not oppose this change on the basis of that understanding, otherwise it was useless. Anyway, I did not vote the new con for another motive, linked also to the VP.

I appreciate that all this is awfully boring, but as it applies for the first time, a clarification could save some posts in the next election.

[GhengisFarb™]

So what you're saying is that if the US President appoints a 16 year old high school kid Attorney General because the kid delivered a pizza to the White House in less than 5 minutes the US Congress has to let him be Attorney General of the United States unless he has committed a crime?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So what you're saying is that if the US President appoints a 16 year old high school kid Attorney General because the kid delivered a pizza to the White House in less than 5 minutes the US Congress has to let him be Attorney General of the United States unless he has committed a crime?

1. I am not discussing of the US constitution, nor of RL; I am just interested in the coherence of the Apolytonian constitution.

2. In the case you describe, I would suggest that the Congress addresses first the case of the President.

[Aro]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

2. In the case you describe, I would suggest that the Congress addresses first the case of the President.

George can't deliver a pizza in less than five minutes. He's not qualified...

[Shiber]

Re: Well...

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
As I stated earlier, I did vote no...

Perhaps I am Shiber in disguise!!

You idiot!! You blew our cover.
Oh well.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


1. I am not discussing of the US constitution, nor of RL; I am just interested in the coherence of the Apolytonian constitution.

2. In the case you describe, I would suggest that the Congress addresses first the case of the President.

I simply stating your argument in real life words. The fact that the Senate is to approve the vice president does not restrict them ONLY to whether or not the candidate has done something illegal. They must believe or at least partially believe that the candidate can perform the duties of President.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

They must believe or at least partially believe that the candidate can perform the duties of President.

No, in withdrawing the VP from the election race, the Senators have delegated this responsibility to the President, the approval being a simple acknowledgment of the nomination. If they still believe that they have the responsibility, it would have been simpler and shorter to have the VP elected.

And the funny thing in this mess is that the President can veto the bill not approving the VP (if by less than 2/3) and nominate the same guy again and again ...

[E_T]

O.K., now we are getting silly....

E_T

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Aro




George can't deliver a pizza in less than five minutes. He's not qualified...

Neither could Bill, he always ate it in route.

[Aro]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Neither could Bill, he always ate it in route.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


No, in withdrawing the VP from the election race, the Senators have delegated this responsibility to the President, the approval being a simple acknowledgment of the nomination. If they still believe that they have the responsibility, it would have been simpler and shorter to have the VP elected.

And the funny thing in this mess is that the President can veto the bill not approving the VP (if by less than 2/3) and nominate the same guy again and again ...

(JK!)

[Aro]

Bump. This poll expires in eleven hours or so.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ah f***