Stuart Grey wrote:

Dan wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
.net...

Stuart Grey wrote:



The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.


I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but
no matter; it is held to be.



FYI:

Article VI, paragraph 2 states this clearly. The phrase also applies to
treaties and laws made by Congress (if they are Constitutional).

Specifically as a reference to superseding State law.

Dan


The constitution comes first; it is not co-equal with treaties and laws.
They way it is worded is obvious to an honest observer, but a lying
commie would try to pervert it otherwise.

It is funny that even you have to point out that Rudy is ignorant about
the constitution.

He has pointed out no such thing. YOU, however,
consistently parade your ignorance around in claiming
there is some "perversion" of it by the Senate
following its rules in determining HOW a confirmation
vote is to be held. There is no perversion. The
Senate controls the procedure by which a judicial
appointment is voted on. The Senate debates, and
Senate rules currently allow for filibusters, on any
matter before the Senate. If the filibuster prevents a
vote from being held, that is in NO WAY in "conflict"
with the Constitution. You simply are wrong to assert
there is one, and your error is based on your appalling
ignorance of the Constitution.