AmericanPapist Comments
Change is looking a lot like more of the same. It's also kinda pale, older, and male dominated.
;-D
Hillary has the right mixture of toughness and amorality required for the job. Useful in dealing with Chavez, Ahmadinijad, etc. or who was behind the Mumbai Massacre. She was bored with the Senate- too many old blowhard males. She's wired more for an executive than legislative position. Can't imagine who NY Gov. Patterson would appoint to succeed her- names like Andy Cuomo come to mind. At least in the early going, when it comes to his appointments- including Robert Gates continuing his outstanding work at Defense- our President-Elect is taking a walk on the mild side.
Her appointment is probably not constitutional. "The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "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 increased 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."
but I don't think that will matter to folks like the above Gerard E who feel that amorality is a good trait. (thats a first, gerard) ooooooo let's find people with no morals......just how Catholic are you.
Spectatio- it's a tough world. As in the horrors of Mumbai. Not a job for the squeamish. Nor someone who will spout American middle class morality to a Chavez or Medvedev. Say what you want about Hillary. The lady doesn't back down from a challenge.
Spectatio, I believe there would be a legal problem with the appointment if the position of Sec. of State had been created while Senator Clinton was serving as a Senator, or if the pay for that position had been increased during her term. The last part is handled by her stepping down from her Senate seat to take the Sec. of State position.
So I don't think there's a Constitutional problem with her appointment.
But I agree with David B. All of this "change" certainly does look familiar.
That section means that the senator or representative has to give up his elected position to sit in the Cabinet, etc.
No surprise that you don't understand Church dogma or teaching very well, either, if you can't comprehend such a simple passage.
This all sort or reminds me of what Bill Clinton did in 1992: he appointed most of the Democrats who challenged him in the primaries to cabinet posts. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer...
I'm not sure she's so "tough." I recall she cried right before the New Hampshire primary over nothing. Tom
"Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer..."
Was that Caesar's motto? ;-)
GEE I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS SO MUCH LOVE FOR THE WORLD'S GREATEST BABY KILLER HERE ON THIS EVER SOOO CATHOLIC SITE........
I remember saying (months ago) that if the choice were between Obama and Clinton, Obama might be better--Hillary seemed more likely to KEEP her anti-life promises. Now it seems we have the worst possible scenario.
No, no, no....Ouch.
Pray lots.
WE HAVE THEM BOTH, AND TO OUR LASTING SHAME MANY CATHOLICS LIKE IT.
Thanks for your support Fausto! Bill and I have admired you for a long time. Our friend Teddy Kennedy says to tell you Hi!
Like I said... multiple alias disorder. Cross gender now, too. Hmmmmn, Rustler/Spectachio.
" 'Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer...'
Was that Caesar's motto? ;-)"
No, it was the advice Vito Corleone gave to his son Michael in one of the "Godfather" films.
But think about it. What better way to stave off a potential challenge than to make your challengers dependent on you?
Hillary did nothing for New York-we were just a steppingstone....good riddance!
Like that 'Caesar quote'....et tu Brute, anyone?
"What better way to stave off a potential challenge than to make your challengers dependent on you?"
Exactly.
Commenting by HaloScan
