"A Clinton-Obama Presidental Bid?"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by onodera
Look, the Constitution explicitly states here the President is male, so Ms. Clinton cannot become one or at least sign the bills.

I know this is a joke, but I'd like to point out that when the sex of the subject is unknown, the custom is to use the male pronoun in English.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I know this is a joke, but I'd like to point out that when the sex of the subject is unknown, the custom is to use the male pronoun in English.

I know, I know, tell that to the Feminazis.

The LSI of our Constitution is too high to be ignored by a modern society!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I work for Labor... and I think Rufus is more spot on than you are on this. Sure Congressional input is very important. Every once in a while, they'll pass some big law that'll change a bunch of stuff, but its usually done with a LOT of Executive Branch involvement and will involve a ton of recommendations by the departments. Add to that, most of the changes we do are done through our department, and I'd say that the executive branch has a very strong effect on domestic policy making.

I never denied the exec branch has a strong effect. Id say its like 70-30. At some times though it seems more like 60-40.

[Imran Siddiqui]

70-30 or 60-40 which way?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Actually, the Constitution, which is vague on so much, is crystal clear on what a president is supposed to do when he doesn't like parts of a law. Per Article I Section 7:

1) The President can approve of a bill in general but object to small sections in particular (espcially with very large bills).

2) I don't think you can argue from that that the President is obligated to veto a bill he thinks is partly unconstitutional.

Not what Shrub is doing; he's just signing the law, then announcing which parts he's going to ignore.

Or announcing which parts are illegal and either can't legally be passed be Congress or can't legally be enforced by him. Of course, you chose the wording with the most negative possible slant, so I did the opposite.

It's why the line item veto came up and, as I'm sure you are aware, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as they said the process demands the President sign the entire bill or veto it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
70-30 or 60-40 which way?

exec over legislative.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's why the line item veto came up and, as I'm sure you are aware, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as they said the process demands the President sign the entire bill or veto it.

I never said the line item veto was constitutional. The point remains that even if the President signs an unconstitutional law, it's obvious that he is not constitutionally bound to uphold it - in fact, he is bound not to.

[Kuciwalker]

That the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional intepretation doesn't make them to only arbiter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I never said the line item veto was constitutional. The point remains that even if the President signs an unconstitutional law, it's obvious that he is not constitutionally bound to uphold it - in fact, he is bound not to.

On the other hand, that can be an impeachable offense, if Congress has the spine to do it.

[Kuciwalker]

Congress can impeach the President for whatever it wants.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but it actually has brought impeachment charges against a President for failing to follow a law passed by Congress (and over a Presidential veto, IIRC).

[Impaler[WrG]]

Clinton/Obama (or the reverse) aint going to happen, Mr. Hair Cut is the only likely VP choice among the current contenders and even thats looking less likely.

[Ramo]

It's Kaine's first term of governor and he'd only be 2 years into it.

Three at the time of election, plus four years as Lt. Gov, and a few years as Mayor of Richmond. In contrast, her most likely opponent's only elective office has been 4 years as Gov (or 8 years in the Senate, 7 years as Mayor, 4 years as Gov). This is not going to be an issue.

The only problem with him as her Veep is that he already endorsed Obama. She might be pissed about that.

I dont know, I havent seen the polling. Its true Indiana hasnt been trending as Dem as Virginia has. I dont know if he has any appeal in Ohio. He certainly has the combo of his gubernatorial AND Senate records.

His Senatorial tenure hasn't been particularly prominent, AFAIK. IN does have an unpopular Republican Gov (Mitch Daniels) up for election, and did turn over three House seats last cycle, but I'd put plenty of money on IN not going for Clinton. Edwards might be able to make it competitive, though.

Ive liked the Bayhs since 1976 (I was present at the NDC convention in NYC that year, when Bayhs candidacy began its downhill slide, as the NDC went with Udall over Bayh, in large measure cause of Udalls earlier opposition to the war in Viet Nam. That ended up giving us Jimmy Carter, and thus Ronald Reagan. history is fillied with ironies)

I like Birch (who was replaced by Quayle in the Reagan landslide ), but am decidedly not a fan of Evan.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

It's Kaine's first term of governor and he'd only be 2 years into it.

Three at the time of election, plus four years as Lt. Gov, and a few years as Mayor of Richmond. In contrast, her most likely opponent's only elective office has been 4 years as Gov (or 8 years in the Senate, 7 years as Mayor, 4 years as Gov). This is not going to be an issue.

It would help if youd use names, I cant keep track of every GOP resume. Anyway. Lt gov aint shi*t, and mayor of Richmond aint Mayor of NY.

I dont know, I havent seen the polling. Its true Indiana hasnt been trending as Dem as Virginia has. I dont know if he has any appeal in Ohio. He certainly has the combo of his gubernatorial AND Senate records.

His Senatorial tenure hasn't been particularly prominent, AFAIK.

He was a very popular governor though, and that would add to the sense of a team ready to govern.

I like Birch (who was replaced by Quayle in the Reagan landslide ), but am decidedly not a fan of Evan.

Somehow Im not surprised

[hexagonian]

You put Obama on the ticket, and you do what no other candidate has successfully done in the past.

Galvanize the black vote.

And with the Republican party in shambles, the dems go for the throat with Clinton/Obama.