Rudy Canoza wrote:
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.

Why do you keep denying things? You're obviously lying about it.

Your buddy Dan, who doesn't like me at all, pointed out to you where the
constitution says it is supreme. He gave you chaper and verse. Here is
the text from the constitution:

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.

See where it says "supreme law of the land"?

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.

I said it was a perversion because when execptions to majority rule are
intended, the constitution spells them out. A logical interpretation of
the powers of the VP, to cast tie breaking votes forces a rational
person to conclude that fifty-fifty splits gave his one vote the
deciding vote. (Article I Section 3, clause 4)

Ergo, 50% + 1 is intended by the constitution.

Not being a rational person, you don't get it.

You must be getting tired of being proven wrong so many times.

You know, if it wasn't for the fact that proving you wrong is like
shooting ducks in a barrell, I'd not bother with you. You're not very
well acquainted on the subjects you post on.

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.

The point being that the constitution does not allow the Senate to hold
up the vote. The constitution is above Senate rules. If the president
appoints, they MUST vote.

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.

How many times have you been proven wrong now? Four?